<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_1756220</id>
	<title>Larry &amp; Sergey To Cash In $5.5B of Google Chips</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264234860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"According to an <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312510011019/d8k.htm">SEC filing</a>, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-22/google-s-founders-file-to-sell-5-million-shares-each-update1-.html">adopted five-year trading plans to sell about 5M shares each</a>, which would yield each about $2.75B based on Friday's closing stock price of $550.01. BTW, Google <a href="http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10003.html">kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare</a> on its founders' <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10204209-93.html?tag=mncol">celebrated $1 annual salaries</a>."</i> After this stock is sold, the founders will hold less than 50\% of the voting shares and thus will give up voting control of Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " According to an SEC filing , Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have adopted five-year trading plans to sell about 5M shares each , which would yield each about $ 2.75B based on Friday 's closing stock price of $ 550.01 .
BTW , Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders ' celebrated $ 1 annual salaries .
" After this stock is sold , the founders will hold less than 50 \ % of the voting shares and thus will give up voting control of Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "According to an SEC filing, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have adopted five-year trading plans to sell about 5M shares each, which would yield each about $2.75B based on Friday's closing stock price of $550.01.
BTW, Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders' celebrated $1 annual salaries.
" After this stock is sold, the founders will hold less than 50\% of the voting shares and thus will give up voting control of Google.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873606</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Nieriko</author>
	<datestamp>1264249320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Under Google&rsquo;s dual-class stock structure, the Class B shares owned by the founders and the chief executive have 10 votes for each share. Upon sale, they are converted to Class A shares with a single vote for each share. "</p><p>This comes in the same article you reference. Correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the sold  shares end up losing a lot of voting power after they are transferred to non-founders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Under Google    s dual-class stock structure , the Class B shares owned by the founders and the chief executive have 10 votes for each share .
Upon sale , they are converted to Class A shares with a single vote for each share .
" This comes in the same article you reference .
Correct me if I am wrong , but apparently the sold shares end up losing a lot of voting power after they are transferred to non-founders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Under Google’s dual-class stock structure, the Class B shares owned by the founders and the chief executive have 10 votes for each share.
Upon sale, they are converted to Class A shares with a single vote for each share.
"This comes in the same article you reference.
Correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the sold  shares end up losing a lot of voting power after they are transferred to non-founders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873534</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264248720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with.  Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.</p></div><p>Why? It's their company, they can do what they want with it. Not their fault millions and millions of people love them/buy shares. They didn't say "this company will focus on making money, so if you buy stocks in us we promise to never do anything with a low ROI. Even if that means doing evil."</p><p>Oh wait, you ALSO expect them to do no evil.</p><p>You sound like Fox News/Republicans commenting on Obama.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with .
Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.Why ?
It 's their company , they can do what they want with it .
Not their fault millions and millions of people love them/buy shares .
They did n't say " this company will focus on making money , so if you buy stocks in us we promise to never do anything with a low ROI .
Even if that means doing evil .
" Oh wait , you ALSO expect them to do no evil.You sound like Fox News/Republicans commenting on Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with.
Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.Why?
It's their company, they can do what they want with it.
Not their fault millions and millions of people love them/buy shares.
They didn't say "this company will focus on making money, so if you buy stocks in us we promise to never do anything with a low ROI.
Even if that means doing evil.
"Oh wait, you ALSO expect them to do no evil.You sound like Fox News/Republicans commenting on Obama.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>nodwick</author>
	<datestamp>1264239540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare.  Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income, not investment income.  Furthermore, capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital\_gains\_tax\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">capped at 15\%</a> [wikipedia.org], while <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income\_tax\_in\_the\_United\_States#Year\_2009\_income\_brackets\_and\_tax\_rates" title="wikipedia.org">the latter is 39\%</a> [wikipedia.org].  Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/" title="nytimes.com">pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\%</a> [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare .
Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income , not investment income .
Furthermore , capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is capped at 15 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] , while the latter is 39 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] .
Not a knock on the Google founders specifically , but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out , our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7 \ % [ nytimes.com ] , while his secretary is taxed at 30 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare.
Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income, not investment income.
Furthermore, capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is capped at 15\% [wikipedia.org], while the latter is 39\% [wikipedia.org].
Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872540</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower *rate*, but seriously, 15\% of $2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars. As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes, does that really matter? Money is liquid - like water, it will flow to the lowest point. When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare, they will move money around as necessary, I would think. In any case, Congress 'borrowed' money from SS for many years, so it needs all the 'general' tax revenues it can get to 'pay back' to Soc. Security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower * rate * , but seriously , 15 \ % of $ 2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars .
As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes , does that really matter ?
Money is liquid - like water , it will flow to the lowest point .
When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare , they will move money around as necessary , I would think .
In any case , Congress 'borrowed ' money from SS for many years , so it needs all the 'general ' tax revenues it can get to 'pay back ' to Soc .
Security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower *rate*, but seriously, 15\% of $2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars.
As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes, does that really matter?
Money is liquid - like water, it will flow to the lowest point.
When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare, they will move money around as necessary, I would think.
In any case, Congress 'borrowed' money from SS for many years, so it needs all the 'general' tax revenues it can get to 'pay back' to Soc.
Security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876886</id>
	<title>Re:Only pay taxes after the n'th dollar?</title>
	<author>Jacked</author>
	<datestamp>1264327800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, as well.  Though I would suggest a slight modification: for those earning less than the threshold, rather than pay no taxes, they should still pay taxes, but, perhaps at a rate of maybe 2\% (or whatever, I made that number up).

</p><p>That way, everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent.  Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one, so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate.  That way you don't have voter apathy or  people wanting to "go after" the rich since it will hit their wallets, as well.  These days a lot of people don't care about tax hikes, because they know that after "rebates", credits, and standard deductions, they won't be paying any taxes anyway.

</p><p>Yeah, I think I like that.  Let's go with a rate of 15\% on all income above the poverty level, and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10\% of the top rate, which, with a top rate of 15\%, would be 1.5\%.

</p><p>Alight, make it so!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , as well .
Though I would suggest a slight modification : for those earning less than the threshold , rather than pay no taxes , they should still pay taxes , but , perhaps at a rate of maybe 2 \ % ( or whatever , I made that number up ) .
That way , everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent .
Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one , so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate .
That way you do n't have voter apathy or people wanting to " go after " the rich since it will hit their wallets , as well .
These days a lot of people do n't care about tax hikes , because they know that after " rebates " , credits , and standard deductions , they wo n't be paying any taxes anyway .
Yeah , I think I like that .
Let 's go with a rate of 15 \ % on all income above the poverty level , and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10 \ % of the top rate , which , with a top rate of 15 \ % , would be 1.5 \ % .
Alight , make it so !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, as well.
Though I would suggest a slight modification: for those earning less than the threshold, rather than pay no taxes, they should still pay taxes, but, perhaps at a rate of maybe 2\% (or whatever, I made that number up).
That way, everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent.
Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one, so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate.
That way you don't have voter apathy or  people wanting to "go after" the rich since it will hit their wallets, as well.
These days a lot of people don't care about tax hikes, because they know that after "rebates", credits, and standard deductions, they won't be paying any taxes anyway.
Yeah, I think I like that.
Let's go with a rate of 15\% on all income above the poverty level, and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10\% of the top rate, which, with a top rate of 15\%, would be 1.5\%.
Alight, make it so!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874246</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1264255080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're a google shareholder, you would've read the prospectus and known you were getting class B stock with no voting rights. Shareholders can go suck it up and take their pennies elsewhere if they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a google shareholder , you would 've read the prospectus and known you were getting class B stock with no voting rights .
Shareholders can go suck it up and take their pennies elsewhere if they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a google shareholder, you would've read the prospectus and known you were getting class B stock with no voting rights.
Shareholders can go suck it up and take their pennies elsewhere if they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876300</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>rumith</author>
	<datestamp>1264275180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better: Google has two classes of shares: A and B, one having 10 votes per share and the other only one vote per share. Selling the 10-vote share automatically makes it 1-vote share. Larry and Sergey, unsurprisingly, have all the 10-vote shares.</p><p>
So, in order to have ultimate control over Google, the two only need to have 5\% of all the shares, not 50\%, as long as all the shares they own are B-class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better : Google has two classes of shares : A and B , one having 10 votes per share and the other only one vote per share .
Selling the 10-vote share automatically makes it 1-vote share .
Larry and Sergey , unsurprisingly , have all the 10-vote shares .
So , in order to have ultimate control over Google , the two only need to have 5 \ % of all the shares , not 50 \ % , as long as all the shares they own are B-class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better: Google has two classes of shares: A and B, one having 10 votes per share and the other only one vote per share.
Selling the 10-vote share automatically makes it 1-vote share.
Larry and Sergey, unsurprisingly, have all the 10-vote shares.
So, in order to have ultimate control over Google, the two only need to have 5\% of all the shares, not 50\%, as long as all the shares they own are B-class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874112</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264253880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a fairly comprehensive consideration of all things income tax, have a look at the <a href="http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/" title="treasury.gov.au" rel="nofollow">Henry Tax Review</a> [treasury.gov.au]. It's Australian but does have a lot of information on various tax systems, pros and cons etc. Fascinating stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a fairly comprehensive consideration of all things income tax , have a look at the Henry Tax Review [ treasury.gov.au ] .
It 's Australian but does have a lot of information on various tax systems , pros and cons etc .
Fascinating stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a fairly comprehensive consideration of all things income tax, have a look at the Henry Tax Review [treasury.gov.au].
It's Australian but does have a lot of information on various tax systems, pros and cons etc.
Fascinating stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876114</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264272600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heard of Capital Gains taxes?  No?  You should read about.  Guaranteed they have paid much more taxes than you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heard of Capital Gains taxes ?
No ? You should read about .
Guaranteed they have paid much more taxes than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heard of Capital Gains taxes?
No?  You should read about.
Guaranteed they have paid much more taxes than you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873208</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264246440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh...because that would be horribly unfair?

Think about it you dope.  If tax is 50\%, and someone makes 50k a year, they have 25,000 in spending money, maybe barely enough to get through the year.

A person who makes $500,000 ends up with $250,000 in spending money, able to live an infinitely more comfortable life than the peon making a tenth of his salary.

The inequalities simply become more profound the higher up you go on the income bracket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh...because that would be horribly unfair ?
Think about it you dope .
If tax is 50 \ % , and someone makes 50k a year , they have 25,000 in spending money , maybe barely enough to get through the year .
A person who makes $ 500,000 ends up with $ 250,000 in spending money , able to live an infinitely more comfortable life than the peon making a tenth of his salary .
The inequalities simply become more profound the higher up you go on the income bracket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh...because that would be horribly unfair?
Think about it you dope.
If tax is 50\%, and someone makes 50k a year, they have 25,000 in spending money, maybe barely enough to get through the year.
A person who makes $500,000 ends up with $250,000 in spending money, able to live an infinitely more comfortable life than the peon making a tenth of his salary.
The inequalities simply become more profound the higher up you go on the income bracket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875242</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264264200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.</p></div><p>You make it sound like there's a mad rush to tax the heck out of everyone, which doesn't seem to jibe with the incredibly low tax rates in the United States compared to the rest of the developed world. The fact of the matter is that politicians have very little incentive to tax people. Nobody likes taxes, and everyone can vote. That we have taxes at all is only because people dislike taxes less than they dislike regressing to the Middle Ages. Taxes are how we buy modern civilization and all of its conveniences -- paved roads, sewers, public education, and other niceties we can't effectively turn over to private enterprise because it's difficult or impossible to turn a profit with them while delivering even a fraction of the existing level of service.</p><p>In any case, the main objection to the flat tax, aside from the fact that all of the serious proposals to date have defined "income" in such a way as to exclude the rich from paying taxes at all -- it's not coincidental that the most vocal advocates of the flat tax are the rich (and front organizations funded by them) -- is that taxing everyone at the same rate and generating enough revenue to actually maintain a civilized state would amount to forcing the poor into serfdom and quite likely sending the middle class after them, as shifting the bulk of the tax burden downstream would likely result in a substantially higher flat tax rate than your existing progressive tax rate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and could n't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it ( or is unable to vote them out ) .
If they want/need to increase taxes , it must affect ALL of their constituents.You make it sound like there 's a mad rush to tax the heck out of everyone , which does n't seem to jibe with the incredibly low tax rates in the United States compared to the rest of the developed world .
The fact of the matter is that politicians have very little incentive to tax people .
Nobody likes taxes , and everyone can vote .
That we have taxes at all is only because people dislike taxes less than they dislike regressing to the Middle Ages .
Taxes are how we buy modern civilization and all of its conveniences -- paved roads , sewers , public education , and other niceties we ca n't effectively turn over to private enterprise because it 's difficult or impossible to turn a profit with them while delivering even a fraction of the existing level of service.In any case , the main objection to the flat tax , aside from the fact that all of the serious proposals to date have defined " income " in such a way as to exclude the rich from paying taxes at all -- it 's not coincidental that the most vocal advocates of the flat tax are the rich ( and front organizations funded by them ) -- is that taxing everyone at the same rate and generating enough revenue to actually maintain a civilized state would amount to forcing the poor into serfdom and quite likely sending the middle class after them , as shifting the bulk of the tax burden downstream would likely result in a substantially higher flat tax rate than your existing progressive tax rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out).
If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.You make it sound like there's a mad rush to tax the heck out of everyone, which doesn't seem to jibe with the incredibly low tax rates in the United States compared to the rest of the developed world.
The fact of the matter is that politicians have very little incentive to tax people.
Nobody likes taxes, and everyone can vote.
That we have taxes at all is only because people dislike taxes less than they dislike regressing to the Middle Ages.
Taxes are how we buy modern civilization and all of its conveniences -- paved roads, sewers, public education, and other niceties we can't effectively turn over to private enterprise because it's difficult or impossible to turn a profit with them while delivering even a fraction of the existing level of service.In any case, the main objection to the flat tax, aside from the fact that all of the serious proposals to date have defined "income" in such a way as to exclude the rich from paying taxes at all -- it's not coincidental that the most vocal advocates of the flat tax are the rich (and front organizations funded by them) -- is that taxing everyone at the same rate and generating enough revenue to actually maintain a civilized state would amount to forcing the poor into serfdom and quite likely sending the middle class after them, as shifting the bulk of the tax burden downstream would likely result in a substantially higher flat tax rate than your existing progressive tax rate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874616</id>
	<title>Google is an AVERAGE search engine &amp; Eric Shmi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once it may have been better but now all the searches are half spam especially business website that have high rankings.  $$$.</p><p>Another point is that Eric Schmidt love Obama and his tax and spend plans.</p><p>If so then LEAD BY EXAMPLE MR. Schmidt.  Use your own money to help the poor.  This includes Dummycrats like Warren buffet and the Heinz &amp; Rockefeller families.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it may have been better but now all the searches are half spam especially business website that have high rankings .
$ $ $ .Another point is that Eric Schmidt love Obama and his tax and spend plans.If so then LEAD BY EXAMPLE MR. Schmidt. Use your own money to help the poor .
This includes Dummycrats like Warren buffet and the Heinz &amp; Rockefeller families .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it may have been better but now all the searches are half spam especially business website that have high rankings.
$$$.Another point is that Eric Schmidt love Obama and his tax and spend plans.If so then LEAD BY EXAMPLE MR. Schmidt.  Use your own money to help the poor.
This includes Dummycrats like Warren buffet and the Heinz &amp; Rockefeller families.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872852</id>
	<title>They should be proud ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that they are paying their fair share of taxes to support the war on terror and to support all the military that protect the oil resources that make their lives so comfortable. Hey, maybe they could join up and do their bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that they are paying their fair share of taxes to support the war on terror and to support all the military that protect the oil resources that make their lives so comfortable .
Hey , maybe they could join up and do their bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that they are paying their fair share of taxes to support the war on terror and to support all the military that protect the oil resources that make their lives so comfortable.
Hey, maybe they could join up and do their bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876204</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1264273740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no flat tax in the US because it would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they do now. Right now, about 40\% of people pay no taxes or are refunded their tax withholdings at the end of the year because of various deductions. Most people think the rich pay no taxes and the poor pick up the slack, but in reality it is the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no flat tax in the US because it would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they do now .
Right now , about 40 \ % of people pay no taxes or are refunded their tax withholdings at the end of the year because of various deductions .
Most people think the rich pay no taxes and the poor pick up the slack , but in reality it is the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no flat tax in the US because it would cause the poor to pay more taxes than they do now.
Right now, about 40\% of people pay no taxes or are refunded their tax withholdings at the end of the year because of various deductions.
Most people think the rich pay no taxes and the poor pick up the slack, but in reality it is the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30885838</id>
	<title>Re:The wave has crested</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264352940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>And Microsoft seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) software company on the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to be little more than the most successful ( so far ) advertising resource on the internet.And Microsoft seems to be little more than the most successful ( so far ) software company on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.And Microsoft seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) software company on the planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875292</id>
	<title>Sale comes after major SCOTUS ruling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264264620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sale comes shortly after a major ruling by the Supreme Court on campaign donations by corporations? Coincidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sale comes shortly after a major ruling by the Supreme Court on campaign donations by corporations ?
Coincidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sale comes shortly after a major ruling by the Supreme Court on campaign donations by corporations?
Coincidence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\%</a> [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</p></div><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X\%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X\%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X\%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X\%.</p><p>This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.</p><p>Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as Warren Buffet has pointed out , our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7 \ % [ nytimes.com ] , while his secretary is taxed at 30 \ % .Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
You make minimum wage ?
You pay X \ % .
You 're lower middle class ?
You pay the same X \ % .
You 're upper class ?
You pay the sam X \ % .
You 're the CEO of a fortune 500 company ?
You pay the same X \ % .This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and could n't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it ( or is unable to vote them out ) .
If they want/need to increase taxes , it must affect ALL of their constituents.Also , as long as what is taxed is clearly defined , it makes tax codes a LOT simpler .
Easier job for the IRS , accountants , employers , and employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
You make minimum wage?
You pay X\%.
You're lower middle class?
You pay the same X\%.
You're upper class?
You pay the sam X\%.
You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
You pay the same X\%.This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out).
If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler.
Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873110</id>
	<title>Terrible</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264245780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is crazy.  Why are they giving up majority control?  I've heard people complain endlessly about how Google could turn into another mindless, profit-at-all-costs-seeking corporation like Microsoft, but I was always secure in the knowledge that the founders had voting control.

I just don't understand this.  Google rakes in billions in pure profit every year.  How could they possibly need more money?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is crazy .
Why are they giving up majority control ?
I 've heard people complain endlessly about how Google could turn into another mindless , profit-at-all-costs-seeking corporation like Microsoft , but I was always secure in the knowledge that the founders had voting control .
I just do n't understand this .
Google rakes in billions in pure profit every year .
How could they possibly need more money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is crazy.
Why are they giving up majority control?
I've heard people complain endlessly about how Google could turn into another mindless, profit-at-all-costs-seeking corporation like Microsoft, but I was always secure in the knowledge that the founders had voting control.
I just don't understand this.
Google rakes in billions in pure profit every year.
How could they possibly need more money?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30877898</id>
	<title>Perhaps it's indee related to China, in a way....</title>
	<author>good water</author>
	<datestamp>1264345260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
After the events of the past few days, perhaps it became clear to them that they are limited with what they can achieve with Google (they have responsibility to share holders, their employees, their clients, the market, their moon base) and having a few billion dollars would allow them to set new operation to take on challenges as free speech and evil overlords. Seriously. It would give them much more freedom to do what they want to do. Imagine their abilities, connection and money, they could go a long way.. or perhaps it's just wishful thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the events of the past few days , perhaps it became clear to them that they are limited with what they can achieve with Google ( they have responsibility to share holders , their employees , their clients , the market , their moon base ) and having a few billion dollars would allow them to set new operation to take on challenges as free speech and evil overlords .
Seriously. It would give them much more freedom to do what they want to do .
Imagine their abilities , connection and money , they could go a long way.. or perhaps it 's just wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
After the events of the past few days, perhaps it became clear to them that they are limited with what they can achieve with Google (they have responsibility to share holders, their employees, their clients, the market, their moon base) and having a few billion dollars would allow them to set new operation to take on challenges as free speech and evil overlords.
Seriously. It would give them much more freedom to do what they want to do.
Imagine their abilities, connection and money, they could go a long way.. or perhaps it's just wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874508</id>
	<title>They will still be in voting control</title>
	<author>Ritchie70</author>
	<datestamp>1264257360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So their share of Google, between the two of them, falls below 50\%.</p><p>Unless it falls significantly below 50\%, a wide array of other parties would have to be in agreement, and against them, for them to not have control. Unless they start screwing up, that is unlikely to occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So their share of Google , between the two of them , falls below 50 \ % .Unless it falls significantly below 50 \ % , a wide array of other parties would have to be in agreement , and against them , for them to not have control .
Unless they start screwing up , that is unlikely to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So their share of Google, between the two of them, falls below 50\%.Unless it falls significantly below 50\%, a wide array of other parties would have to be in agreement, and against them, for them to not have control.
Unless they start screwing up, that is unlikely to occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874740</id>
	<title>social security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary says:</p><p>"BTW, Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders' celebrated $1 annual salaries."</p><p>Which implies that less than a dollar of social security taxes will be paid on those billions of dollars of compensation.  But it's misleading because Google has to pay taxes based on the fair market value of those stock shares, which is probably in the twelve figure range, not the one figure range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says : " BTW , Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders ' celebrated $ 1 annual salaries .
" Which implies that less than a dollar of social security taxes will be paid on those billions of dollars of compensation .
But it 's misleading because Google has to pay taxes based on the fair market value of those stock shares , which is probably in the twelve figure range , not the one figure range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says:"BTW, Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders' celebrated $1 annual salaries.
"Which implies that less than a dollar of social security taxes will be paid on those billions of dollars of compensation.
But it's misleading because Google has to pay taxes based on the fair market value of those stock shares, which is probably in the twelve figure range, not the one figure range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872572</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but it's still complicated.  You pay X\% of what exactly?  There are all sorts of ways to come into money.  You have to figure out which times count towards tax and which don't.</p><p>Note, you can't say "it's always taxed" because that would lead to money being taxed multiple times for no reason, therefor massively <em>increasing</em> the tax many people pay.  For example, say my company hires some independent contractors to do some work today.  Some of the money I get will be passed straight from me to them and they are responsible for paying the taxes on it.  I don't pay any taxes on that money I passed to them (which makes sense, no reason to tax me for money I did not get).  This is just a very simple example, any other new tax system needs to account for things like that and it gets complicated very quickly.</p><p>The system does need an overhaul though.  There is so much wasted money in the current system.  If we had a more streamlined system then the government could probably lower taxes and still end up collecting more in the long run just from the savings from not having to process complicated the shit they have to now... and people would save money the same way, by not having to spend so much wasted time on tax related crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but it 's still complicated .
You pay X \ % of what exactly ?
There are all sorts of ways to come into money .
You have to figure out which times count towards tax and which do n't.Note , you ca n't say " it 's always taxed " because that would lead to money being taxed multiple times for no reason , therefor massively increasing the tax many people pay .
For example , say my company hires some independent contractors to do some work today .
Some of the money I get will be passed straight from me to them and they are responsible for paying the taxes on it .
I do n't pay any taxes on that money I passed to them ( which makes sense , no reason to tax me for money I did not get ) .
This is just a very simple example , any other new tax system needs to account for things like that and it gets complicated very quickly.The system does need an overhaul though .
There is so much wasted money in the current system .
If we had a more streamlined system then the government could probably lower taxes and still end up collecting more in the long run just from the savings from not having to process complicated the shit they have to now... and people would save money the same way , by not having to spend so much wasted time on tax related crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but it's still complicated.
You pay X\% of what exactly?
There are all sorts of ways to come into money.
You have to figure out which times count towards tax and which don't.Note, you can't say "it's always taxed" because that would lead to money being taxed multiple times for no reason, therefor massively increasing the tax many people pay.
For example, say my company hires some independent contractors to do some work today.
Some of the money I get will be passed straight from me to them and they are responsible for paying the taxes on it.
I don't pay any taxes on that money I passed to them (which makes sense, no reason to tax me for money I did not get).
This is just a very simple example, any other new tax system needs to account for things like that and it gets complicated very quickly.The system does need an overhaul though.
There is so much wasted money in the current system.
If we had a more streamlined system then the government could probably lower taxes and still end up collecting more in the long run just from the savings from not having to process complicated the shit they have to now... and people would save money the same way, by not having to spend so much wasted time on tax related crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878272</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>bidule</author>
	<datestamp>1264348800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ah, nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.</p></div><p>Glad to know taxes are the same everywhere.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't 'work on the way' and deduct a driver. To have a 'company car and driver,' the company must own and employ both and that means either a) it's a privately held company and you're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company, Hell will freeze over first.</p></div><p>So, you could do it if you wanted. How is that different from what I said?</p><p>If the tax rate is flat and you cannot deduct anything, some professions are screwed. If companies can deduct them, work as a consultant for your own company and have it pay for your deductible perks. Flat tax may be better, but it's not the universal panacea some people make it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.Glad to know taxes are the same everywhere.You ca n't 'work on the way ' and deduct a driver .
To have a 'company car and driver, ' the company must own and employ both and that means either a ) it 's a privately held company and you 're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company , Hell will freeze over first.So , you could do it if you wanted .
How is that different from what I said ? If the tax rate is flat and you can not deduct anything , some professions are screwed .
If companies can deduct them , work as a consultant for your own company and have it pay for your deductible perks .
Flat tax may be better , but it 's not the universal panacea some people make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.Glad to know taxes are the same everywhere.You can't 'work on the way' and deduct a driver.
To have a 'company car and driver,' the company must own and employ both and that means either a) it's a privately held company and you're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company, Hell will freeze over first.So, you could do it if you wanted.
How is that different from what I said?If the tax rate is flat and you cannot deduct anything, some professions are screwed.
If companies can deduct them, work as a consultant for your own company and have it pay for your deductible perks.
Flat tax may be better, but it's not the universal panacea some people make it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872584</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would start simple, but by the time the combined bill passed both houses of Congress, it would have so many exceptions and exemptions that it wouldn't look much like a flat tax.  For example, what about the deduction for interest payments on a primary home mortgage?  You aren't going to get a majority of Congressmen and Senators to eliminate that, even if the overall rate goes down.</p><p>And we're not even talking about the state tax codes yet.</p><p>Then, as the years pass, the clauses and exemptions would increase until the new and improved code resembled the old, at least in terms of volume.  That's what Congressmen and state legislators do.  You might have noticed that there are quite a few lobbyists in Washington and political action groups in general, and they have enough money to spend on both advertising and campaign contributions (and occasional outright bribes) to have a say in who gets re-elected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would start simple , but by the time the combined bill passed both houses of Congress , it would have so many exceptions and exemptions that it would n't look much like a flat tax .
For example , what about the deduction for interest payments on a primary home mortgage ?
You are n't going to get a majority of Congressmen and Senators to eliminate that , even if the overall rate goes down.And we 're not even talking about the state tax codes yet.Then , as the years pass , the clauses and exemptions would increase until the new and improved code resembled the old , at least in terms of volume .
That 's what Congressmen and state legislators do .
You might have noticed that there are quite a few lobbyists in Washington and political action groups in general , and they have enough money to spend on both advertising and campaign contributions ( and occasional outright bribes ) to have a say in who gets re-elected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would start simple, but by the time the combined bill passed both houses of Congress, it would have so many exceptions and exemptions that it wouldn't look much like a flat tax.
For example, what about the deduction for interest payments on a primary home mortgage?
You aren't going to get a majority of Congressmen and Senators to eliminate that, even if the overall rate goes down.And we're not even talking about the state tax codes yet.Then, as the years pass, the clauses and exemptions would increase until the new and improved code resembled the old, at least in terms of volume.
That's what Congressmen and state legislators do.
You might have noticed that there are quite a few lobbyists in Washington and political action groups in general, and they have enough money to spend on both advertising and campaign contributions (and occasional outright bribes) to have a say in who gets re-elected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30886642</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X\%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X\%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X\%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X\%.</p><p>This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.</p><p>Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.</p></div><p>So let me just clarify, you're asking why not fire half the IRS, remove loads of accountants, allow everyone to understand their taxes, force business to pay honest tax and increase taxation levels for the wealthy?</p><p>It's because of Obama and his horribly expensive 'Medicare' system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
You make minimum wage ?
You pay X \ % .
You 're lower middle class ?
You pay the same X \ % .
You 're upper class ?
You pay the sam X \ % .
You 're the CEO of a fortune 500 company ?
You pay the same X \ % .This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and could n't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it ( or is unable to vote them out ) .
If they want/need to increase taxes , it must affect ALL of their constituents.Also , as long as what is taxed is clearly defined , it makes tax codes a LOT simpler .
Easier job for the IRS , accountants , employers , and employees.So let me just clarify , you 're asking why not fire half the IRS , remove loads of accountants , allow everyone to understand their taxes , force business to pay honest tax and increase taxation levels for the wealthy ? It 's because of Obama and his horribly expensive 'Medicare ' system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
You make minimum wage?
You pay X\%.
You're lower middle class?
You pay the same X\%.
You're upper class?
You pay the sam X\%.
You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
You pay the same X\%.This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out).
If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler.
Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.So let me just clarify, you're asking why not fire half the IRS, remove loads of accountants, allow everyone to understand their taxes, force business to pay honest tax and increase taxation levels for the wealthy?It's because of Obama and his horribly expensive 'Medicare' system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876446</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1264363920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\%</a> [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</p></div><p>So, Warrent Buffett paid about $30,000 in taxes while his secretary only paid about $15,000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as Warren Buffet has pointed out , our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7 \ % [ nytimes.com ] , while his secretary is taxed at 30 \ % .So , Warrent Buffett paid about $ 30,000 in taxes while his secretary only paid about $ 15,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.So, Warrent Buffett paid about $30,000 in taxes while his secretary only paid about $15,000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872198</id>
	<title>So now it becomes evil...</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1264238700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have seen that process over and over...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have seen that process over and over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have seen that process over and over...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's irrelevant.  This is their signal that they think it's over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's irrelevant .
This is their signal that they think it 's over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's irrelevant.
This is their signal that they think it's over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873302</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264247040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>17.7\% of a billion dollars is still more money than 30\% of $60,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>17.7 \ % of a billion dollars is still more money than 30 \ % of $ 60,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17.7\% of a billion dollars is still more money than 30\% of $60,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.</p><p>You can't 'work on the way' and deduct a driver. I can't deduct my car because I occasionally make (hands-free!) phone calls from it. You have to use the vehicle for actual work - like delivering something - before it's an expense. To have a 'company car and driver,' the company must own and employ both and that means either a) it's a privately held company and you're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company, Hell will freeze over first -- or else it's a public company and you're 'vital' enough to the organization that allowing you to conduct business instead of driving is worth it to the company. In the case of most multi-million or -billion dollar firms, that's usually true of a CEO or a CFO.</p><p>In theory, the graduated, progressive income tax is fine. In practice, it sucks. The appeal of the flat tax is that nobody can fuck with it. There are no loopholes, few or no deductions, and no tax havens. There are, however, usually 'tax floors' in most flat tax proposals -- most likely your 20k example would pay 0\%. I'm pretty sure that Forbes' flat tax proposal didn't actually kick in until slightly above 20k. Finally, most flat tax proposals are nowhere near 33\%, as that's astronomically high by US standards. The ones I've seen are between 15 and 18 percent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.You ca n't 'work on the way ' and deduct a driver .
I ca n't deduct my car because I occasionally make ( hands-free !
) phone calls from it .
You have to use the vehicle for actual work - like delivering something - before it 's an expense .
To have a 'company car and driver, ' the company must own and employ both and that means either a ) it 's a privately held company and you 're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company , Hell will freeze over first -- or else it 's a public company and you 're 'vital ' enough to the organization that allowing you to conduct business instead of driving is worth it to the company .
In the case of most multi-million or -billion dollar firms , that 's usually true of a CEO or a CFO.In theory , the graduated , progressive income tax is fine .
In practice , it sucks .
The appeal of the flat tax is that nobody can fuck with it .
There are no loopholes , few or no deductions , and no tax havens .
There are , however , usually 'tax floors ' in most flat tax proposals -- most likely your 20k example would pay 0 \ % .
I 'm pretty sure that Forbes ' flat tax proposal did n't actually kick in until slightly above 20k .
Finally , most flat tax proposals are nowhere near 33 \ % , as that 's astronomically high by US standards .
The ones I 've seen are between 15 and 18 percent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, nothing like actually having to know anything about taxes before you post about it.You can't 'work on the way' and deduct a driver.
I can't deduct my car because I occasionally make (hands-free!
) phone calls from it.
You have to use the vehicle for actual work - like delivering something - before it's an expense.
To have a 'company car and driver,' the company must own and employ both and that means either a) it's a privately held company and you're sufficiently high up such that you can direct funds toward such frivolous expenses -- and as someone who owns a privately held company, Hell will freeze over first -- or else it's a public company and you're 'vital' enough to the organization that allowing you to conduct business instead of driving is worth it to the company.
In the case of most multi-million or -billion dollar firms, that's usually true of a CEO or a CFO.In theory, the graduated, progressive income tax is fine.
In practice, it sucks.
The appeal of the flat tax is that nobody can fuck with it.
There are no loopholes, few or no deductions, and no tax havens.
There are, however, usually 'tax floors' in most flat tax proposals -- most likely your 20k example would pay 0\%.
I'm pretty sure that Forbes' flat tax proposal didn't actually kick in until slightly above 20k.
Finally, most flat tax proposals are nowhere near 33\%, as that's astronomically high by US standards.
The ones I've seen are between 15 and 18 percent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874574</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1264258200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control. So 30\% is more than 60\% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance.</p><blockquote><div><p>This is probably true.  However, it's worth pointing out that Google has a dual-share class structure, however, where most of the shares in the company are regular class A shares with one vote each, while the insiders have Class B shares with 10x the voting power of the regular shares.  So you have to do the math a bit more carefully; how much of the profits of the company you own (your actual number of shares) isn't the same as what share of the vote you get (your proportion of A vs. B shares).

</p><p>The <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312510011019/d8k.htm" title="sec.gov" rel="nofollow">SEC filing linked from the story</a> [sec.gov] makes it crystal clear:</p><blockquote><div><p>Larry and Sergey currently hold approximately 57.7 million shares of Class B common stock, which represents approximately 18\% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 59\% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock. Under the terms of these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, and as a part of a five year diversification plan, Larry and Sergey each intend to sell approximately 5 million shares. If Larry and Sergey complete all the planned sales under these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, they would continue to collectively own approximately 47.7 million shares, which would represent approximately 15\% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 48\% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock (assuming no other sales and conversions of Google capital stock occur).</p></div></blockquote><p>So even today, L&amp;S control Google despite only owning 18\% of the company.  Nice trick, huh.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds , who do not typically actively engage in corporate control .
So 30 \ % is more than 60 \ % of the stock held by individuals , who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance.This is probably true .
However , it 's worth pointing out that Google has a dual-share class structure , however , where most of the shares in the company are regular class A shares with one vote each , while the insiders have Class B shares with 10x the voting power of the regular shares .
So you have to do the math a bit more carefully ; how much of the profits of the company you own ( your actual number of shares ) is n't the same as what share of the vote you get ( your proportion of A vs. B shares ) .
The SEC filing linked from the story [ sec.gov ] makes it crystal clear : Larry and Sergey currently hold approximately 57.7 million shares of Class B common stock , which represents approximately 18 \ % of Google 's outstanding capital stock and approximately 59 \ % of the voting power of Google 's outstanding capital stock .
Under the terms of these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans , and as a part of a five year diversification plan , Larry and Sergey each intend to sell approximately 5 million shares .
If Larry and Sergey complete all the planned sales under these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans , they would continue to collectively own approximately 47.7 million shares , which would represent approximately 15 \ % of Google 's outstanding capital stock and approximately 48 \ % of the voting power of Google 's outstanding capital stock ( assuming no other sales and conversions of Google capital stock occur ) .So even today , L&amp;S control Google despite only owning 18 \ % of the company .
Nice trick , huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control.
So 30\% is more than 60\% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance.This is probably true.
However, it's worth pointing out that Google has a dual-share class structure, however, where most of the shares in the company are regular class A shares with one vote each, while the insiders have Class B shares with 10x the voting power of the regular shares.
So you have to do the math a bit more carefully; how much of the profits of the company you own (your actual number of shares) isn't the same as what share of the vote you get (your proportion of A vs. B shares).
The SEC filing linked from the story [sec.gov] makes it crystal clear:Larry and Sergey currently hold approximately 57.7 million shares of Class B common stock, which represents approximately 18\% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 59\% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock.
Under the terms of these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, and as a part of a five year diversification plan, Larry and Sergey each intend to sell approximately 5 million shares.
If Larry and Sergey complete all the planned sales under these Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, they would continue to collectively own approximately 47.7 million shares, which would represent approximately 15\% of Google's outstanding capital stock and approximately 48\% of the voting power of Google's outstanding capital stock (assuming no other sales and conversions of Google capital stock occur).So even today, L&amp;S control Google despite only owning 18\% of the company.
Nice trick, huh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874386</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1264256280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mutual funds have a fiduciary duty to exercise control of their shares in their fund holders interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mutual funds have a fiduciary duty to exercise control of their shares in their fund holders interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mutual funds have a fiduciary duty to exercise control of their shares in their fund holders interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874222</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?</p></div><p>Because a flat tax doesn't allow social, commercial or industrial engineering by giving tax incentives for certain behaviors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ? Because a flat tax does n't allow social , commercial or industrial engineering by giving tax incentives for certain behaviors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?Because a flat tax doesn't allow social, commercial or industrial engineering by giving tax incentives for certain behaviors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264238880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, since Eric Schmidt isn't selling his shares, the three of them together will have far more than 50\% of the voting shares. (<a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/google-founders-to-sell-but-are-not-losing-control/" title="nytimes.com">reference</a> [nytimes.com])</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , since Eric Schmidt is n't selling his shares , the three of them together will have far more than 50 \ % of the voting shares .
( reference [ nytimes.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, since Eric Schmidt isn't selling his shares, the three of them together will have far more than 50\% of the voting shares.
(reference [nytimes.com])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874726</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264259880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.</p></div><p>You're making the assumption that any of those groups actually want the tax code to be simplified. Actually, it's the exact opposite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... job security for the win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , as long as what is taxed is clearly defined , it makes tax codes a LOT simpler .
Easier job for the IRS , accountants , employers , and employees.You 're making the assumption that any of those groups actually want the tax code to be simplified .
Actually , it 's the exact opposite ... job security for the win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler.
Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.You're making the assumption that any of those groups actually want the tax code to be simplified.
Actually, it's the exact opposite ... job security for the win.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873594</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>smith6174</author>
	<datestamp>1264249260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is an honest opinion regarded as a troll?  People have such illusions about the leaders of corporations!  People probably called legitimate skeptics trolls before Enron, Worldcom, and "the credit crisis" too.  Google is terrifyingly similar to those infamous situations right before things went wrong.  A company with so many phds employed could never write a program to fudge advertising revenue numbers right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is an honest opinion regarded as a troll ?
People have such illusions about the leaders of corporations !
People probably called legitimate skeptics trolls before Enron , Worldcom , and " the credit crisis " too .
Google is terrifyingly similar to those infamous situations right before things went wrong .
A company with so many phds employed could never write a program to fudge advertising revenue numbers right ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is an honest opinion regarded as a troll?
People have such illusions about the leaders of corporations!
People probably called legitimate skeptics trolls before Enron, Worldcom, and "the credit crisis" too.
Google is terrifyingly similar to those infamous situations right before things went wrong.
A company with so many phds employed could never write a program to fudge advertising revenue numbers right?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873602</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1264249260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW, a lot of people said that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_System\_R" title="wikipedia.org">IBM's System R</a> [wikipedia.org] was going to be an investment with "shit ROI", but we can see how that turned out.  Relational databases and declarative query languages have been hugely important innovations in computing.  Oracle owes it's entire existence on the concept.
<br> <br>
Ten, twenty years from now... that's when we can say whether Google's projects have had "shit ROI" or not.  Considering that Google's success largely comes from having proven the practicality of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapreduce" title="wikipedia.org">MapReduce</a> [wikipedia.org], and thus providing a great deal of fuel for language research again, I'd say no, their investment is absolutely not shit.  Maybe their ROI is low on their own balance sheet, but for CS in general-- no way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , a lot of people said that IBM 's System R [ wikipedia.org ] was going to be an investment with " shit ROI " , but we can see how that turned out .
Relational databases and declarative query languages have been hugely important innovations in computing .
Oracle owes it 's entire existence on the concept .
Ten , twenty years from now... that 's when we can say whether Google 's projects have had " shit ROI " or not .
Considering that Google 's success largely comes from having proven the practicality of MapReduce [ wikipedia.org ] , and thus providing a great deal of fuel for language research again , I 'd say no , their investment is absolutely not shit .
Maybe their ROI is low on their own balance sheet , but for CS in general-- no way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, a lot of people said that IBM's System R [wikipedia.org] was going to be an investment with "shit ROI", but we can see how that turned out.
Relational databases and declarative query languages have been hugely important innovations in computing.
Oracle owes it's entire existence on the concept.
Ten, twenty years from now... that's when we can say whether Google's projects have had "shit ROI" or not.
Considering that Google's success largely comes from having proven the practicality of MapReduce [wikipedia.org], and thus providing a great deal of fuel for language research again, I'd say no, their investment is absolutely not shit.
Maybe their ROI is low on their own balance sheet, but for CS in general-- no way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873616</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264249380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One reason is a flat tax, just as sales tax, has a more significant impact on the poor. If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a weak, the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant. If you make 10,000 a weak, the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant. So, a flat tax is "fair" but only from a certain set of principles.</p></div><p>The wage adjusts accordingly to account for the tax. People become unwilling to work for what was previously $5, which is now $3.75. Ergo, businesses raise pay until they have the workers they need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason is a flat tax , just as sales tax , has a more significant impact on the poor .
If the tax rate is 10 \ % and you make $ 100 a weak , the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant .
If you make 10,000 a weak , the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant .
So , a flat tax is " fair " but only from a certain set of principles.The wage adjusts accordingly to account for the tax .
People become unwilling to work for what was previously $ 5 , which is now $ 3.75 .
Ergo , businesses raise pay until they have the workers they need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason is a flat tax, just as sales tax, has a more significant impact on the poor.
If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a weak, the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant.
If you make 10,000 a weak, the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant.
So, a flat tax is "fair" but only from a certain set of principles.The wage adjusts accordingly to account for the tax.
People become unwilling to work for what was previously $5, which is now $3.75.
Ergo, businesses raise pay until they have the workers they need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1264250940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care so much about SS. It's capped anyway, and to within a hand grenades throw you pretty much take out only what you put in.</p><p>However, what I don't agree with is them taking $1 and for the most part dodging an income tax. They aren't doing it to save jobs, like the CEO of Vale or Aspen or one of those who did the same thing. For these guys its all PR. The company can afford to pay them. And should. Instead it pays less taxes on that money than if it were on a personal income. All of the things that you and me pay for they are getting for free, or at a lower rate because they have the ability to be compensated in ways that have lower tax rates. It's good to know these guys have policemen and firemen protecting their millions in assets for free. It's good to know that the fighter jets that will protect them from the Chinese were not funded at all by these bozos (yes, a bit of tongue in cheek there but you get the point). These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.</p><p>What they should do is take hte salary and contrinute 100\% of it to the national debt, or other charity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care so much about SS .
It 's capped anyway , and to within a hand grenades throw you pretty much take out only what you put in.However , what I do n't agree with is them taking $ 1 and for the most part dodging an income tax .
They are n't doing it to save jobs , like the CEO of Vale or Aspen or one of those who did the same thing .
For these guys its all PR .
The company can afford to pay them .
And should .
Instead it pays less taxes on that money than if it were on a personal income .
All of the things that you and me pay for they are getting for free , or at a lower rate because they have the ability to be compensated in ways that have lower tax rates .
It 's good to know these guys have policemen and firemen protecting their millions in assets for free .
It 's good to know that the fighter jets that will protect them from the Chinese were not funded at all by these bozos ( yes , a bit of tongue in cheek there but you get the point ) .
These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.What they should do is take hte salary and contrinute 100 \ % of it to the national debt , or other charity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care so much about SS.
It's capped anyway, and to within a hand grenades throw you pretty much take out only what you put in.However, what I don't agree with is them taking $1 and for the most part dodging an income tax.
They aren't doing it to save jobs, like the CEO of Vale or Aspen or one of those who did the same thing.
For these guys its all PR.
The company can afford to pay them.
And should.
Instead it pays less taxes on that money than if it were on a personal income.
All of the things that you and me pay for they are getting for free, or at a lower rate because they have the ability to be compensated in ways that have lower tax rates.
It's good to know these guys have policemen and firemen protecting their millions in assets for free.
It's good to know that the fighter jets that will protect them from the Chinese were not funded at all by these bozos (yes, a bit of tongue in cheek there but you get the point).
These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.What they should do is take hte salary and contrinute 100\% of it to the national debt, or other charity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872500</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\%, while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</i></p><p>Funny how rich people always complain that they are taxed more than the middle class or poor. Of course they are taxed MORE in total sum, but the percentage of how much they are taxed is much LESS - as you pointed out. I'm sure 30\% taxes to a family making $50,000 a year is much more of a burden than 30\% to a family making $5 million a year. Of course it is obvious that one should live within their means, but I think it is not as difficult to live within ones means when they are making a 7 figure income versus a 5 figure income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a knock on the Google founders specifically , but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out , our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7 \ % , while his secretary is taxed at 30 \ % .Funny how rich people always complain that they are taxed more than the middle class or poor .
Of course they are taxed MORE in total sum , but the percentage of how much they are taxed is much LESS - as you pointed out .
I 'm sure 30 \ % taxes to a family making $ 50,000 a year is much more of a burden than 30 \ % to a family making $ 5 million a year .
Of course it is obvious that one should live within their means , but I think it is not as difficult to live within ones means when they are making a 7 figure income versus a 5 figure income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\%, while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.Funny how rich people always complain that they are taxed more than the middle class or poor.
Of course they are taxed MORE in total sum, but the percentage of how much they are taxed is much LESS - as you pointed out.
I'm sure 30\% taxes to a family making $50,000 a year is much more of a burden than 30\% to a family making $5 million a year.
Of course it is obvious that one should live within their means, but I think it is not as difficult to live within ones means when they are making a 7 figure income versus a 5 figure income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873448</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1264247940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are the mods marking parent interesting instead of funny? I presume he was being sarcastic.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the mods marking parent interesting instead of funny ?
I presume he was being sarcastic.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the mods marking parent interesting instead of funny?
I presume he was being sarcastic.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.31019216</id>
	<title>People want their money either</title>
	<author>t\_ban</author>
	<datestamp>1264963200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. to grow</p><p>or</p><p>2. to buy them something.</p><p>So when Page and Brin cash in on their stocks, they either</p><p>1. Want to buy something</p><p>or</p><p>2. Think that their money will grow better elsewhere.</p><p>Given Google's position in the market, 1 is more likely than 2, However, it is possible that they know something that we don't, which makes them think Google stock is about to lose some value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. to growor2 .
to buy them something.So when Page and Brin cash in on their stocks , they either1 .
Want to buy somethingor2 .
Think that their money will grow better elsewhere.Given Google 's position in the market , 1 is more likely than 2 , However , it is possible that they know something that we do n't , which makes them think Google stock is about to lose some value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. to growor2.
to buy them something.So when Page and Brin cash in on their stocks, they either1.
Want to buy somethingor2.
Think that their money will grow better elsewhere.Given Google's position in the market, 1 is more likely than 2, However, it is possible that they know something that we don't, which makes them think Google stock is about to lose some value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873520</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264248600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>loosing $1000 is less than loosing $10?</p><p>good crack?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>loosing $ 1000 is less than loosing $ 10 ? good crack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>loosing $1000 is less than loosing $10?good crack?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884406</id>
	<title>Re:The wave has crested</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264342320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas, Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>You say that like it's some trifling, nearly inconsequential thing. The Web literally runs on almost nothing but advertising alone. Saying, "that's all they have going for them" is like saying that being the world's leading economic superpower is the only thing that the U.S. has going for it.</p><blockquote><div><p>It isn't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search, and that will continue to generate revenue for them. Beyond that, what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price? Cellphones, netbooks, tablets? Google Apps?</p></div></blockquote><p>You nearly answered your own question. Almost every single one of the technologies that you view as Google's side-projects are designed to strengthen and enhance their advertising business. GMail, for example, is free because they want to show you the customized advertisements inside the applications. Chromium makes their web applications faster and tracks more of what you do online, so they can show you more advertisements. Their netbook OS encourages you to do more of your daily computing in the cloud, so that they can show you advertisements inside those online applications. Same for their phone OS. Same for just about every other venture they're engaged in. It's all engineered to put more eyeballs on the web, and by extension, their ads.</p><p>I have a lot of complaints about Google. (Especially about the sheer amount of personal data that they collect and refuse to disclose or discuss. I wouldn't bet against Google having an extremely accurate personal profile of everyone that's been alive since the year 2000.) But I do give them credit for having the foresight to advance technology for the benefit of everyone, because they know that the investment will eventually come back to them tenfold. They know that what's good for the Web is good for Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas , Google seems to be little more than the most successful ( so far ) advertising resource on the internet.You say that like it 's some trifling , nearly inconsequential thing .
The Web literally runs on almost nothing but advertising alone .
Saying , " that 's all they have going for them " is like saying that being the world 's leading economic superpower is the only thing that the U.S. has going for it.It is n't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search , and that will continue to generate revenue for them .
Beyond that , what are they really going to do that justifies their $ 500 + per share stock price ?
Cellphones , netbooks , tablets ?
Google Apps ? You nearly answered your own question .
Almost every single one of the technologies that you view as Google 's side-projects are designed to strengthen and enhance their advertising business .
GMail , for example , is free because they want to show you the customized advertisements inside the applications .
Chromium makes their web applications faster and tracks more of what you do online , so they can show you more advertisements .
Their netbook OS encourages you to do more of your daily computing in the cloud , so that they can show you advertisements inside those online applications .
Same for their phone OS .
Same for just about every other venture they 're engaged in .
It 's all engineered to put more eyeballs on the web , and by extension , their ads.I have a lot of complaints about Google .
( Especially about the sheer amount of personal data that they collect and refuse to disclose or discuss .
I would n't bet against Google having an extremely accurate personal profile of everyone that 's been alive since the year 2000 .
) But I do give them credit for having the foresight to advance technology for the benefit of everyone , because they know that the investment will eventually come back to them tenfold .
They know that what 's good for the Web is good for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas, Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.You say that like it's some trifling, nearly inconsequential thing.
The Web literally runs on almost nothing but advertising alone.
Saying, "that's all they have going for them" is like saying that being the world's leading economic superpower is the only thing that the U.S. has going for it.It isn't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search, and that will continue to generate revenue for them.
Beyond that, what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price?
Cellphones, netbooks, tablets?
Google Apps?You nearly answered your own question.
Almost every single one of the technologies that you view as Google's side-projects are designed to strengthen and enhance their advertising business.
GMail, for example, is free because they want to show you the customized advertisements inside the applications.
Chromium makes their web applications faster and tracks more of what you do online, so they can show you more advertisements.
Their netbook OS encourages you to do more of your daily computing in the cloud, so that they can show you advertisements inside those online applications.
Same for their phone OS.
Same for just about every other venture they're engaged in.
It's all engineered to put more eyeballs on the web, and by extension, their ads.I have a lot of complaints about Google.
(Especially about the sheer amount of personal data that they collect and refuse to disclose or discuss.
I wouldn't bet against Google having an extremely accurate personal profile of everyone that's been alive since the year 2000.
) But I do give them credit for having the foresight to advance technology for the benefit of everyone, because they know that the investment will eventually come back to them tenfold.
They know that what's good for the Web is good for Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30880374</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1264361400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless of course they raise the cap on SS by like 10\%.  In which case it's fine.Social Security isn't in any great risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless of course they raise the cap on SS by like 10 \ % .
In which case it 's fine.Social Security is n't in any great risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless of course they raise the cap on SS by like 10\%.
In which case it's fine.Social Security isn't in any great risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875994</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264271160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While they are not contributing directly through income tax, I don't really care because they have contributed to society in so many other ways.  These guys have created a huge amount of jobs and wealth which is just as/more important for our country.  All of those high paying Google jobs they have created also have large income taxes associated with them also.</p><p>(Plus, you can't complain about them getting a little for free when they have created a company that is all about giving things away for free.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While they are not contributing directly through income tax , I do n't really care because they have contributed to society in so many other ways .
These guys have created a huge amount of jobs and wealth which is just as/more important for our country .
All of those high paying Google jobs they have created also have large income taxes associated with them also .
( Plus , you ca n't complain about them getting a little for free when they have created a company that is all about giving things away for free .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While they are not contributing directly through income tax, I don't really care because they have contributed to society in so many other ways.
These guys have created a huge amount of jobs and wealth which is just as/more important for our country.
All of those high paying Google jobs they have created also have large income taxes associated with them also.
(Plus, you can't complain about them getting a little for free when they have created a company that is all about giving things away for free.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</id>
	<title>Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>solafide</author>
	<datestamp>1264238700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS? They're hardly going to need to draw on it, so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money. Oh wait, that isn't how SS works? Drat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS ?
They 're hardly going to need to draw on it , so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money .
Oh wait , that is n't how SS works ?
Drat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS?
They're hardly going to need to draw on it, so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money.
Oh wait, that isn't how SS works?
Drat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873990</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>rnelsonee</author>
	<datestamp>1264252680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxes would go up - significantly - for 95\% of the population. Currently, <a href="http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6+" title="ntu.org">the top 1\% of taxpayers pay 40\% </a> [ntu.org] of the taxes - <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html" title="taxfoundation.org">more than the bottom 95\%</a> [taxfoundation.org]. Presumably because they can afford it.</p><p>If you move to a flat tax and want to keep the same taxes coming in, nearly every single taxpayer would need to pay double or triple their current tax rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes would go up - significantly - for 95 \ % of the population .
Currently , the top 1 \ % of taxpayers pay 40 \ % [ ntu.org ] of the taxes - more than the bottom 95 \ % [ taxfoundation.org ] .
Presumably because they can afford it.If you move to a flat tax and want to keep the same taxes coming in , nearly every single taxpayer would need to pay double or triple their current tax rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes would go up - significantly - for 95\% of the population.
Currently, the top 1\% of taxpayers pay 40\%  [ntu.org] of the taxes - more than the bottom 95\% [taxfoundation.org].
Presumably because they can afford it.If you move to a flat tax and want to keep the same taxes coming in, nearly every single taxpayer would need to pay double or triple their current tax rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873550</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264248960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also fucks over everyone that is poor.</p><p>Poor people are below the low bracket. They money is predominantly spent on day-to-day life. There is little discretionary income. 15\% tax on such an income is a huge clawback.</p><p>Rich people, on the other hand, have lots of discretionary income. Flat tax does not claw back any significant part of that income.</p><p>This is why there is income tax in the first place. Of course, Bush has perverted income tax such that capital gains are not really counted as part of income anymore so rich people get a break. What did he call them, not the elite but his base?</p><p>A sane tax is a progressive income tax system with 100\% capital gains inclusion rate. As Buffet says, 100\% capital gains inclusion would not stop people from inventing. On contrary, more people would be investing instead of speculative trading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also fucks over everyone that is poor.Poor people are below the low bracket .
They money is predominantly spent on day-to-day life .
There is little discretionary income .
15 \ % tax on such an income is a huge clawback.Rich people , on the other hand , have lots of discretionary income .
Flat tax does not claw back any significant part of that income.This is why there is income tax in the first place .
Of course , Bush has perverted income tax such that capital gains are not really counted as part of income anymore so rich people get a break .
What did he call them , not the elite but his base ? A sane tax is a progressive income tax system with 100 \ % capital gains inclusion rate .
As Buffet says , 100 \ % capital gains inclusion would not stop people from inventing .
On contrary , more people would be investing instead of speculative trading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also fucks over everyone that is poor.Poor people are below the low bracket.
They money is predominantly spent on day-to-day life.
There is little discretionary income.
15\% tax on such an income is a huge clawback.Rich people, on the other hand, have lots of discretionary income.
Flat tax does not claw back any significant part of that income.This is why there is income tax in the first place.
Of course, Bush has perverted income tax such that capital gains are not really counted as part of income anymore so rich people get a break.
What did he call them, not the elite but his base?A sane tax is a progressive income tax system with 100\% capital gains inclusion rate.
As Buffet says, 100\% capital gains inclusion would not stop people from inventing.
On contrary, more people would be investing instead of speculative trading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872204</id>
	<title>Major Cash Flow!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think China should buy all these shares, then they wouldn't need to hack anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think China should buy all these shares , then they would n't need to hack anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think China should buy all these shares, then they wouldn't need to hack anything!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873844</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are week, damn it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are week , damn it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are week, damn it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873204</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1264246440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X\%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X\%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X\%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X\%.</p></div><p>There's 2 major problems with this.</p><p>The first problem is discretionary income, that is income past what is spent on taxes and living expenses. At the lower incomes most of the income is necessary simply for living. If someone is earning just barely enough for food, shelter, and clothing then a flat percent tax is a killer. Higher incomes have a much larger proportion of discretionary income.</p><p>There's a simple answer for this: allow everyone a single deduction based on cost of living for their area. You then tax the remainder which should represent the discretionary income. This is still pretty fair and simple and it is less of a hardship on low wage earners.</p><p>The second problem is the Robin Hood syndrome. Since we live in a representative republic it is generally majority rule. The majority of the people vote for politicians who will give them free stuff. These people think, "Those rich people have plenty to give so why not tax them a lot and lower how much the rest are taxed?"</p><p>Sadly, the only fix for this is for the rich to hide their money. They will find loopholes in the tax code, move to offshore tax havens, invest their money in ways that can't be taxed, or simply pay off politicians to create ways for the rich to keep their money. The net result is that now the money is effectively removed from the local economy and everyone is worse off.</p><p>As usual, people go for the short-term solution. This means we are stuck in the second scenario that I presented. Watch as our economy continues to spiral down the drain...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
You make minimum wage ?
You pay X \ % .
You 're lower middle class ?
You pay the same X \ % .
You 're upper class ?
You pay the sam X \ % .
You 're the CEO of a fortune 500 company ?
You pay the same X \ % .There 's 2 major problems with this.The first problem is discretionary income , that is income past what is spent on taxes and living expenses .
At the lower incomes most of the income is necessary simply for living .
If someone is earning just barely enough for food , shelter , and clothing then a flat percent tax is a killer .
Higher incomes have a much larger proportion of discretionary income.There 's a simple answer for this : allow everyone a single deduction based on cost of living for their area .
You then tax the remainder which should represent the discretionary income .
This is still pretty fair and simple and it is less of a hardship on low wage earners.The second problem is the Robin Hood syndrome .
Since we live in a representative republic it is generally majority rule .
The majority of the people vote for politicians who will give them free stuff .
These people think , " Those rich people have plenty to give so why not tax them a lot and lower how much the rest are taxed ?
" Sadly , the only fix for this is for the rich to hide their money .
They will find loopholes in the tax code , move to offshore tax havens , invest their money in ways that ca n't be taxed , or simply pay off politicians to create ways for the rich to keep their money .
The net result is that now the money is effectively removed from the local economy and everyone is worse off.As usual , people go for the short-term solution .
This means we are stuck in the second scenario that I presented .
Watch as our economy continues to spiral down the drain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
You make minimum wage?
You pay X\%.
You're lower middle class?
You pay the same X\%.
You're upper class?
You pay the sam X\%.
You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
You pay the same X\%.There's 2 major problems with this.The first problem is discretionary income, that is income past what is spent on taxes and living expenses.
At the lower incomes most of the income is necessary simply for living.
If someone is earning just barely enough for food, shelter, and clothing then a flat percent tax is a killer.
Higher incomes have a much larger proportion of discretionary income.There's a simple answer for this: allow everyone a single deduction based on cost of living for their area.
You then tax the remainder which should represent the discretionary income.
This is still pretty fair and simple and it is less of a hardship on low wage earners.The second problem is the Robin Hood syndrome.
Since we live in a representative republic it is generally majority rule.
The majority of the people vote for politicians who will give them free stuff.
These people think, "Those rich people have plenty to give so why not tax them a lot and lower how much the rest are taxed?
"Sadly, the only fix for this is for the rich to hide their money.
They will find loopholes in the tax code, move to offshore tax havens, invest their money in ways that can't be taxed, or simply pay off politicians to create ways for the rich to keep their money.
The net result is that now the money is effectively removed from the local economy and everyone is worse off.As usual, people go for the short-term solution.
This means we are stuck in the second scenario that I presented.
Watch as our economy continues to spiral down the drain...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875850</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>coolgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264269780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have plenty of money.  This is a cash out.  That's ok though, the internet tried to tar and feather me when I said Apple was going to turn iTunes into an HD movie rental service, and more recently, when I suggested they are building their own search technology in secret.</p><p>Their stock already tanked 7\% on Friday.  Watch what happens to <a href="http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=GOOG&amp;selected=GOOG" title="nasdaq.com">GOOG</a> [nasdaq.com] on Monday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have plenty of money .
This is a cash out .
That 's ok though , the internet tried to tar and feather me when I said Apple was going to turn iTunes into an HD movie rental service , and more recently , when I suggested they are building their own search technology in secret.Their stock already tanked 7 \ % on Friday .
Watch what happens to GOOG [ nasdaq.com ] on Monday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have plenty of money.
This is a cash out.
That's ok though, the internet tried to tar and feather me when I said Apple was going to turn iTunes into an HD movie rental service, and more recently, when I suggested they are building their own search technology in secret.Their stock already tanked 7\% on Friday.
Watch what happens to GOOG [nasdaq.com] on Monday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884116</id>
	<title>Re:SEC filing does not = selling</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1264339980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they are buying options on their own stock? Pretty sure that is illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are buying options on their own stock ?
Pretty sure that is illegal : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are buying options on their own stock?
Pretty sure that is illegal :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873340</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1264247220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?"</p><p>(Special) Interest Groups.  Also known as the voters.</p><p>The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy.  Want people to own homes?  Then create an home loan interest tax deduction (loophole).  Want to encourage long term stock ownership?  Then create a capital gains tax deduction (loophole).  Want to encourage X, Y, and Z.  Then create create a deduction (loophole) for X, Y and Z.</p><p>Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like our current tax code.  People don't really know what they want.  At least they seem to vote in the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
" ( Special ) Interest Groups .
Also known as the voters.The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy .
Want people to own homes ?
Then create an home loan interest tax deduction ( loophole ) .
Want to encourage long term stock ownership ?
Then create a capital gains tax deduction ( loophole ) .
Want to encourage X , Y , and Z. Then create create a deduction ( loophole ) for X , Y and Z.Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like our current tax code .
People do n't really know what they want .
At least they seem to vote in the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
"(Special) Interest Groups.
Also known as the voters.The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy.
Want people to own homes?
Then create an home loan interest tax deduction (loophole).
Want to encourage long term stock ownership?
Then create a capital gains tax deduction (loophole).
Want to encourage X, Y, and Z.  Then create create a deduction (loophole) for X, Y and Z.Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like our current tax code.
People don't really know what they want.
At least they seem to vote in the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873162</id>
	<title>I smell a Rat</title>
	<author>Avalon's\_Avatar</author>
	<datestamp>1264246140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trouble in China followed by the two principals cashing in stock?  Something's going down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trouble in China followed by the two principals cashing in stock ?
Something 's going down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trouble in China followed by the two principals cashing in stock?
Something's going down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874328</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264255740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>Imagine if all government Debt were paid off tomorrow. Poof. Do you really think that would solve the problem?</p><p>The problem being, The federal government blowing money because they know they won't be responsible when the bill comes due.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? Imagine if all government Debt were paid off tomorrow .
Poof. Do you really think that would solve the problem ? The problem being , The federal government blowing money because they know they wo n't be responsible when the bill comes due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?Imagine if all government Debt were paid off tomorrow.
Poof. Do you really think that would solve the problem?The problem being, The federal government blowing money because they know they won't be responsible when the bill comes due.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Conception</author>
	<datestamp>1264243560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason is a flat tax, just as sales tax, has a more significant impact on the poor. If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a weak, the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant. If you make 10,000 a weak, the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant. So, a flat tax is "fair" but only from a certain set of principles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason is a flat tax , just as sales tax , has a more significant impact on the poor .
If the tax rate is 10 \ % and you make $ 100 a weak , the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant .
If you make 10,000 a weak , the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant .
So , a flat tax is " fair " but only from a certain set of principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason is a flat tax, just as sales tax, has a more significant impact on the poor.
If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a weak, the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant.
If you make 10,000 a weak, the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant.
So, a flat tax is "fair" but only from a certain set of principles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876912</id>
	<title>Preffered Stock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do these voting numbers take into account that the Class B shares are worth 10x votes per share than Class A stock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do these voting numbers take into account that the Class B shares are worth 10x votes per share than Class A stock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do these voting numbers take into account that the Class B shares are worth 10x votes per share than Class A stock?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192</id>
	<title>They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they have less than 50\%, if they have the largest block then in all likelyhood they will still retain control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they have less than 50 \ % , if they have the largest block then in all likelyhood they will still retain control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they have less than 50\%, if they have the largest block then in all likelyhood they will still retain control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874700</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1264259640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahahahaha.  Civic duty to pay taxes above and beyond what's required by law?  Ahahaha, that's really good one.  Of course, there's no such civic duty.  Any intelligent person will \_always\_ pay as little in taxes as is legally possible.  If you want to do good in the world, spend your money philanthropically on your own - paying taxes is the best way to see it go towards inefficiency at best and sometimes outright evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahahahaha .
Civic duty to pay taxes above and beyond what 's required by law ?
Ahahaha , that 's really good one .
Of course , there 's no such civic duty .
Any intelligent person will \ _always \ _ pay as little in taxes as is legally possible .
If you want to do good in the world , spend your money philanthropically on your own - paying taxes is the best way to see it go towards inefficiency at best and sometimes outright evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahahahaha.
Civic duty to pay taxes above and beyond what's required by law?
Ahahaha, that's really good one.
Of course, there's no such civic duty.
Any intelligent person will \_always\_ pay as little in taxes as is legally possible.
If you want to do good in the world, spend your money philanthropically on your own - paying taxes is the best way to see it go towards inefficiency at best and sometimes outright evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873392</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264247580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably know just what we know, and that is the stock market is about to drop hard and fast all at once very soon. They don't want to raise alarm by cashing out, but they want to cash out all the same knowing a collapse is inevitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably know just what we know , and that is the stock market is about to drop hard and fast all at once very soon .
They do n't want to raise alarm by cashing out , but they want to cash out all the same knowing a collapse is inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably know just what we know, and that is the stock market is about to drop hard and fast all at once very soon.
They don't want to raise alarm by cashing out, but they want to cash out all the same knowing a collapse is inevitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875990</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>goodtim</author>
	<datestamp>1264271100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you know what captical gains tax on $2.75 billion is? These guys may not pay income tax on their salary, but the government will get its share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know what captical gains tax on $ 2.75 billion is ?
These guys may not pay income tax on their salary , but the government will get its share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know what captical gains tax on $2.75 billion is?
These guys may not pay income tax on their salary, but the government will get its share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878334</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>LtGordon</author>
	<datestamp>1264349400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the joke was that they officially make a salary of $1 a year, from which is deducted pennies in Social Security and Taxes. Whoosh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the joke was that they officially make a salary of $ 1 a year , from which is deducted pennies in Social Security and Taxes .
Whoosh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the joke was that they officially make a salary of $1 a year, from which is deducted pennies in Social Security and Taxes.
Whoosh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236</id>
	<title>The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The profits from selling of their shares will be considered income by the IRS, and taxed accordingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The profits from selling of their shares will be considered income by the IRS , and taxed accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The profits from selling of their shares will be considered income by the IRS, and taxed accordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30877856</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1264344660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shares and the like are not wages or income. If they could tax you when the value goes up, could you tax them when the value goes down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shares and the like are not wages or income .
If they could tax you when the value goes up , could you tax them when the value goes down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shares and the like are not wages or income.
If they could tax you when the value goes up, could you tax them when the value goes down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178</id>
	<title>The wave has crested</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1264246260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all downhill from here.  I wouldn't say that Google's endeavors beyond search have been complete failures.  I wouldn't call them raging successes either.  The time is coming in the next few years when people are going to take a long and hard look at Google's valuation and begin to ask, "Where is the value?"</p><p>For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas, Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.  It isn't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search, and that will continue to generate revenue for them.  Beyond that, what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price?  Cellphones, netbooks, tablets?  Google Apps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all downhill from here .
I would n't say that Google 's endeavors beyond search have been complete failures .
I would n't call them raging successes either .
The time is coming in the next few years when people are going to take a long and hard look at Google 's valuation and begin to ask , " Where is the value ?
" For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas , Google seems to be little more than the most successful ( so far ) advertising resource on the internet .
It is n't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search , and that will continue to generate revenue for them .
Beyond that , what are they really going to do that justifies their $ 500 + per share stock price ?
Cellphones , netbooks , tablets ?
Google Apps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all downhill from here.
I wouldn't say that Google's endeavors beyond search have been complete failures.
I wouldn't call them raging successes either.
The time is coming in the next few years when people are going to take a long and hard look at Google's valuation and begin to ask, "Where is the value?
"For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas, Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet.
It isn't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search, and that will continue to generate revenue for them.
Beyond that, what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price?
Cellphones, netbooks, tablets?
Google Apps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872872</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1264244100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so what the reason for lower capital gains is to encorage investment - what realy is bad is the 1$ salary which is tax aavoidance scheam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so what the reason for lower capital gains is to encorage investment - what realy is bad is the 1 $ salary which is tax aavoidance scheam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so what the reason for lower capital gains is to encorage investment - what realy is bad is the 1$ salary which is tax aavoidance scheam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874590</id>
	<title>Re:The wave has crested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price?</p></div><p>No company does anything to "justify" their stock price.  The only reason GOOG is at 500 is because there are suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinvestors willing to buy it there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what are they really going to do that justifies their $ 500 + per share stock price ? No company does anything to " justify " their stock price .
The only reason GOOG is at 500 is because there are suckers ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hinvestors willing to buy it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price?No company does anything to "justify" their stock price.
The only reason GOOG is at 500 is because there are suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinvestors willing to buy it there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30882298</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but you are talking about the \_gains\_.  The original value of the stock at the time it was granted was taxed as regular income, just like a salary would be, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but you are talking about the \ _gains \ _ .
The original value of the stock at the time it was granted was taxed as regular income , just like a salary would be , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but you are talking about the \_gains\_.
The original value of the stock at the time it was granted was taxed as regular income, just like a salary would be, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872676</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1264242480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is? Perhaps it's just smart financial strategy?  It's called taking profits.  Their SEC requires them, along with pretty much every other insider,  to file their stock selling plans ahead of time.    They can't just buy &amp; sell google stock like you and I can at a whim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ?
Perhaps it 's just smart financial strategy ?
It 's called taking profits .
Their SEC requires them , along with pretty much every other insider , to file their stock selling plans ahead of time .
They ca n't just buy &amp; sell google stock like you and I can at a whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is?
Perhaps it's just smart financial strategy?
It's called taking profits.
Their SEC requires them, along with pretty much every other insider,  to file their stock selling plans ahead of time.
They can't just buy &amp; sell google stock like you and I can at a whim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873394</id>
	<title>SEC filing does not = selling</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1264247640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, people but large shareholders file SEC notices like this all the time, but that does not obligate them to sell. It just allows them the option to sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , people but large shareholders file SEC notices like this all the time , but that does not obligate them to sell .
It just allows them the option to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, people but large shareholders file SEC notices like this all the time, but that does not obligate them to sell.
It just allows them the option to sell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874634</id>
	<title>My speculation ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264258800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking out some money to buy some spectrum so they can start their own mobile carrier.  Its part of a long term plan that I haven't entirely figured out yet, but this is just an extension of the FCC auction stuff.  ChromeOS and the android devices plays into it as well of course, maybe their going to offer free wireless service in exchange for being a bitch to their ads in everything you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking out some money to buy some spectrum so they can start their own mobile carrier .
Its part of a long term plan that I have n't entirely figured out yet , but this is just an extension of the FCC auction stuff .
ChromeOS and the android devices plays into it as well of course , maybe their going to offer free wireless service in exchange for being a bitch to their ads in everything you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking out some money to buy some spectrum so they can start their own mobile carrier.
Its part of a long term plan that I haven't entirely figured out yet, but this is just an extension of the FCC auction stuff.
ChromeOS and the android devices plays into it as well of course, maybe their going to offer free wireless service in exchange for being a bitch to their ads in everything you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878586</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really see how that is related.</p><p>I mean you are arguing about progressive vs flat tax. Progressive only means that higher incomes are taxed higher.</p><p>What I am wondering:<br>* Where are the loopholes? I don't see any. The loopholes don't come from the progressive tax rate, but from all the other laws that are in no way related to that.<br>* Why wouldn't there be tax havens? Tax haven means, that somewhere else the taxes are lower than here. That is only related to the amount of taxes you pay and in no way related to how that is calculated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see how that is related.I mean you are arguing about progressive vs flat tax .
Progressive only means that higher incomes are taxed higher.What I am wondering : * Where are the loopholes ?
I do n't see any .
The loopholes do n't come from the progressive tax rate , but from all the other laws that are in no way related to that .
* Why would n't there be tax havens ?
Tax haven means , that somewhere else the taxes are lower than here .
That is only related to the amount of taxes you pay and in no way related to how that is calculated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see how that is related.I mean you are arguing about progressive vs flat tax.
Progressive only means that higher incomes are taxed higher.What I am wondering:* Where are the loopholes?
I don't see any.
The loopholes don't come from the progressive tax rate, but from all the other laws that are in no way related to that.
* Why wouldn't there be tax havens?
Tax haven means, that somewhere else the taxes are lower than here.
That is only related to the amount of taxes you pay and in no way related to how that is calculated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876430</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1264363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.</em> </p><p>You are a moron. See the opinion of the Supreme Court, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory\_v.\_Helvering" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>Gregory v. Helvering</i> </a> [wikipedia.org]. I quote: "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."</p><p>You are a whiner who doesn't like the fact that other people are far more successful than you. "Civic duty?" Yeah, Page and Brin certainly haven't contributed anything meaningful to society... It's not like they invented an Internet search engine or something like that, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more .
You are a moron .
See the opinion of the Supreme Court , Gregory v. Helvering [ wikipedia.org ] .
I quote : " The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes , or altogether avoid them , by means which the law permits , can not be doubted .
" You are a whiner who does n't like the fact that other people are far more successful than you .
" Civic duty ?
" Yeah , Page and Brin certainly have n't contributed anything meaningful to society... It 's not like they invented an Internet search engine or something like that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.
You are a moron.
See the opinion of the Supreme Court,  Gregory v. Helvering  [wikipedia.org].
I quote: "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.
"You are a whiner who doesn't like the fact that other people are far more successful than you.
"Civic duty?
" Yeah, Page and Brin certainly haven't contributed anything meaningful to society... It's not like they invented an Internet search engine or something like that, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1264239060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Anything more than 30\% (or less) is sufficient to control a large public corporation. The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control. So 30\% is more than 60\% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance. IOW, they're keeping total control, for all practical purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Anything more than 30 \ % ( or less ) is sufficient to control a large public corporation .
The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds , who do not typically actively engage in corporate control .
So 30 \ % is more than 60 \ % of the stock held by individuals , who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance .
IOW , they 're keeping total control , for all practical purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Anything more than 30\% (or less) is sufficient to control a large public corporation.
The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control.
So 30\% is more than 60\% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance.
IOW, they're keeping total control, for all practical purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873402</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1264247700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends."</p><p>I totally agree.  Microsoft has been gouging investors for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends .
" I totally agree .
Microsoft has been gouging investors for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.
"I totally agree.
Microsoft has been gouging investors for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873362</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>Nebulious</author>
	<datestamp>1264247340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>YEAH!  Google should be all about the short term and next quarter's profits!  That's how our economy's so strong today!</htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH !
Google should be all about the short term and next quarter 's profits !
That 's how our economy 's so strong today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH!
Google should be all about the short term and next quarter's profits!
That's how our economy's so strong today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874910</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get the point of the snide remark at the end of the summary at all. "Celebrated" salary. It should be "celebrated." Stock has nothing to do with salary. Selling it for 1 trillion shouldn't matter. They will have to pay capital gains as they are selling property. Would the submitter be snide about selling something on ebay and not paying payroll taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get the point of the snide remark at the end of the summary at all .
" Celebrated " salary .
It should be " celebrated .
" Stock has nothing to do with salary .
Selling it for 1 trillion should n't matter .
They will have to pay capital gains as they are selling property .
Would the submitter be snide about selling something on ebay and not paying payroll taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get the point of the snide remark at the end of the summary at all.
"Celebrated" salary.
It should be "celebrated.
" Stock has nothing to do with salary.
Selling it for 1 trillion shouldn't matter.
They will have to pay capital gains as they are selling property.
Would the submitter be snide about selling something on ebay and not paying payroll taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873338</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1264247220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock. More likely they just want some money. Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization, so maybe they are planning on starting a charity. Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere. Or a small country.<br></i></p><p>Just some a-grade weed and one hell of a high price hooker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock .
More likely they just want some money .
Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization , so maybe they are planning on starting a charity .
Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere .
Or a small country.Just some a-grade weed and one hell of a high price hooker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock.
More likely they just want some money.
Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization, so maybe they are planning on starting a charity.
Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere.
Or a small country.Just some a-grade weed and one hell of a high price hooker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872478</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1264240860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you own a jump to conclusions mat too?  I thought I was the only one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you own a jump to conclusions mat too ?
I thought I was the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you own a jump to conclusions mat too?
I thought I was the only one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874746</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1264260120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure you think this would somehow "get" the rich, but quite the contrary this will simply never happen because poor people currently pay less than your X\% and the riffraff will never stand for "increasing" the tax on the poor.</p><p>A flat tax will never happen now, it should have been done 20 years ago.  At this point the people who pay very little or \_no\_ taxes (the poor) outnumber those who pay taxes.  A flat tax is therefore simply impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you think this would somehow " get " the rich , but quite the contrary this will simply never happen because poor people currently pay less than your X \ % and the riffraff will never stand for " increasing " the tax on the poor.A flat tax will never happen now , it should have been done 20 years ago .
At this point the people who pay very little or \ _no \ _ taxes ( the poor ) outnumber those who pay taxes .
A flat tax is therefore simply impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you think this would somehow "get" the rich, but quite the contrary this will simply never happen because poor people currently pay less than your X\% and the riffraff will never stand for "increasing" the tax on the poor.A flat tax will never happen now, it should have been done 20 years ago.
At this point the people who pay very little or \_no\_ taxes (the poor) outnumber those who pay taxes.
A flat tax is therefore simply impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873314</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>Dilligent</author>
	<datestamp>1264247100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Innovation means taking risks when going into directions that may not immediately turn a profit form time to time. Google has been doing this with their 20\% rule <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/googles-20-percent-time-in-action.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/googles-20-percent-time-in-action.html</a> [blogspot.com] for quite a while now and some nice projects have resulted.

If this philosophy, which often enough might not result in immediate profit for the company is to be stopped the way you seem to have in mind, then the very thing google stands for could be lost.

In the end, turning to profits like that might be the best way to commit suicide for a company that relies on innovation, good PR and fanboyism as much as google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation means taking risks when going into directions that may not immediately turn a profit form time to time .
Google has been doing this with their 20 \ % rule http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/googles-20-percent-time-in-action.html [ blogspot.com ] for quite a while now and some nice projects have resulted .
If this philosophy , which often enough might not result in immediate profit for the company is to be stopped the way you seem to have in mind , then the very thing google stands for could be lost .
In the end , turning to profits like that might be the best way to commit suicide for a company that relies on innovation , good PR and fanboyism as much as google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation means taking risks when going into directions that may not immediately turn a profit form time to time.
Google has been doing this with their 20\% rule http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/googles-20-percent-time-in-action.html [blogspot.com] for quite a while now and some nice projects have resulted.
If this philosophy, which often enough might not result in immediate profit for the company is to be stopped the way you seem to have in mind, then the very thing google stands for could be lost.
In the end, turning to profits like that might be the best way to commit suicide for a company that relies on innovation, good PR and fanboyism as much as google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872642</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264242240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is their signal that they think it's over.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, this is their signal that they wouldn't mind having $5.5 billion dollars around that doesn't depend on Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is their signal that they think it 's over.No , this is their signal that they would n't mind having $ 5.5 billion dollars around that does n't depend on Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is their signal that they think it's over.No, this is their signal that they wouldn't mind having $5.5 billion dollars around that doesn't depend on Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874600</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264258440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, thats why its called 'social security' rather than 'my personal retirement fund'.</p><p>Its the group functioning in a shared way for the good of those less fortunate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , thats why its called 'social security ' rather than 'my personal retirement fund'.Its the group functioning in a shared way for the good of those less fortunate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, thats why its called 'social security' rather than 'my personal retirement fund'.Its the group functioning in a shared way for the good of those less fortunate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872740</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>bidule</author>
	<datestamp>1264242960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X\%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X\%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X\%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X\%.</p></div><p>If you need 20k to make ends meet and you get 30k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33\%.</p><p>If you need 40k to make ends meet and you get 100k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33\%. But at least you'll be able to put away 25k for retirement.</p><p>If you need 80k to make ends meet and you get 300k, you won't care if the flat rate is 33\%. After all, you still get 120k to invest. After 5 years, you can more than hire a 30k maid just on interests, who still won't be able to make ends meet. {30k spent = 45k income, on 600k = 7.5\%}</p><p>Pure flat tax would work if income vs need was linear, but it's closer to exponential. Moreover, your driver will be company expenses since you can work on the way, while the bus pass will come from the maid's pocket change. Not that  it's unfair, but just to show the solution ain't that easy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
You make minimum wage ?
You pay X \ % .
You 're lower middle class ?
You pay the same X \ % .
You 're upper class ?
You pay the sam X \ % .
You 're the CEO of a fortune 500 company ?
You pay the same X \ % .If you need 20k to make ends meet and you get 30k , you wo n't be happy if the flat rate is 33 \ % .If you need 40k to make ends meet and you get 100k , you wo n't be happy if the flat rate is 33 \ % .
But at least you 'll be able to put away 25k for retirement.If you need 80k to make ends meet and you get 300k , you wo n't care if the flat rate is 33 \ % .
After all , you still get 120k to invest .
After 5 years , you can more than hire a 30k maid just on interests , who still wo n't be able to make ends meet .
{ 30k spent = 45k income , on 600k = 7.5 \ % } Pure flat tax would work if income vs need was linear , but it 's closer to exponential .
Moreover , your driver will be company expenses since you can work on the way , while the bus pass will come from the maid 's pocket change .
Not that it 's unfair , but just to show the solution ai n't that easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
You make minimum wage?
You pay X\%.
You're lower middle class?
You pay the same X\%.
You're upper class?
You pay the sam X\%.
You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
You pay the same X\%.If you need 20k to make ends meet and you get 30k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33\%.If you need 40k to make ends meet and you get 100k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33\%.
But at least you'll be able to put away 25k for retirement.If you need 80k to make ends meet and you get 300k, you won't care if the flat rate is 33\%.
After all, you still get 120k to invest.
After 5 years, you can more than hire a 30k maid just on interests, who still won't be able to make ends meet.
{30k spent = 45k income, on 600k = 7.5\%}Pure flat tax would work if income vs need was linear, but it's closer to exponential.
Moreover, your driver will be company expenses since you can work on the way, while the bus pass will come from the maid's pocket change.
Not that  it's unfair, but just to show the solution ain't that easy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872190</id>
	<title>BFD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big fucking deal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big fucking deal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big fucking deal...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873944</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1264252140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X\%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X\%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X\%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X\%.</p></div></blockquote><p>Easy. A flat tax is regressive.  Money, like most things in this world, is subject to diminishing returns. Taking 15\% of income from someone that doesn't have much money effects them disprotionately more than someone that's rich.  The wealthy can simply absorb more of a hit and remain effectively unscathed than those with less money.  If you have to pay for a war, or to raise revenue to get out of debt, why should you take food off the plates of the poor, or make granny have to chose between food and medicine, when Uncle Moneybags tips his hookers half the amount you need?</p><p>The flat tax is a canard used for those that want to cut taxes to dismantel government, because both taxes and government are axiomatically bad.  (Reagan domestic policy advisor, and supply-side economics proponent, Bruce Bartlett <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17936\_Page2.html" title="politico.com" rel="nofollow">recently called these ideas "not realistic."</a> [politico.com] )  The "confusion" is also a canard, because quite simply, the vast majority of wage earners in this country file a 1040-EZ and take the standard deduction.  It's add and subtract.  There's nothing to it.</p><p>When you see someone arguing for this, you have to ask yourself what is they have to gain from it?  In the case of "flat tax" proponents, it's an across the board tax cut.   It's a complete restructuring of the tax base in order to benefit them.   It's a decrease in government revenues, and thus the leading of more deficit spendings.  (Witness California.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please tell me why we just do n't move to a simple flat tax rate ?
You make minimum wage ?
You pay X \ % .
You 're lower middle class ?
You pay the same X \ % .
You 're upper class ?
You pay the sam X \ % .
You 're the CEO of a fortune 500 company ?
You pay the same X \ % .Easy .
A flat tax is regressive .
Money , like most things in this world , is subject to diminishing returns .
Taking 15 \ % of income from someone that does n't have much money effects them disprotionately more than someone that 's rich .
The wealthy can simply absorb more of a hit and remain effectively unscathed than those with less money .
If you have to pay for a war , or to raise revenue to get out of debt , why should you take food off the plates of the poor , or make granny have to chose between food and medicine , when Uncle Moneybags tips his hookers half the amount you need ? The flat tax is a canard used for those that want to cut taxes to dismantel government , because both taxes and government are axiomatically bad .
( Reagan domestic policy advisor , and supply-side economics proponent , Bruce Bartlett recently called these ideas " not realistic .
" [ politico.com ] ) The " confusion " is also a canard , because quite simply , the vast majority of wage earners in this country file a 1040-EZ and take the standard deduction .
It 's add and subtract .
There 's nothing to it.When you see someone arguing for this , you have to ask yourself what is they have to gain from it ?
In the case of " flat tax " proponents , it 's an across the board tax cut .
It 's a complete restructuring of the tax base in order to benefit them .
It 's a decrease in government revenues , and thus the leading of more deficit spendings .
( Witness California .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?
You make minimum wage?
You pay X\%.
You're lower middle class?
You pay the same X\%.
You're upper class?
You pay the sam X\%.
You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
You pay the same X\%.Easy.
A flat tax is regressive.
Money, like most things in this world, is subject to diminishing returns.
Taking 15\% of income from someone that doesn't have much money effects them disprotionately more than someone that's rich.
The wealthy can simply absorb more of a hit and remain effectively unscathed than those with less money.
If you have to pay for a war, or to raise revenue to get out of debt, why should you take food off the plates of the poor, or make granny have to chose between food and medicine, when Uncle Moneybags tips his hookers half the amount you need?The flat tax is a canard used for those that want to cut taxes to dismantel government, because both taxes and government are axiomatically bad.
(Reagan domestic policy advisor, and supply-side economics proponent, Bruce Bartlett recently called these ideas "not realistic.
" [politico.com] )  The "confusion" is also a canard, because quite simply, the vast majority of wage earners in this country file a 1040-EZ and take the standard deduction.
It's add and subtract.
There's nothing to it.When you see someone arguing for this, you have to ask yourself what is they have to gain from it?
In the case of "flat tax" proponents, it's an across the board tax cut.
It's a complete restructuring of the tax base in order to benefit them.
It's a decrease in government revenues, and thus the leading of more deficit spendings.
(Witness California.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock.  More likely they just want some money.  Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization, so maybe they are planning on starting a charity.  Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere. Or a small country. <br> <br>
Since they are cashing out together, it seems they have some joint project they want to work on.  Maybe something to do with censorship in China? A several billion dollar advertising campaign could do something maybe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock .
More likely they just want some money .
Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization , so maybe they are planning on starting a charity .
Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere .
Or a small country .
Since they are cashing out together , it seems they have some joint project they want to work on .
Maybe something to do with censorship in China ?
A several billion dollar advertising campaign could do something maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock.
More likely they just want some money.
Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization, so maybe they are planning on starting a charity.
Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere.
Or a small country.
Since they are cashing out together, it seems they have some joint project they want to work on.
Maybe something to do with censorship in China?
A several billion dollar advertising campaign could do something maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875326</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264264920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed but your spelling is pretty weak.... I actually cringed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed but your spelling is pretty weak.... I actually cringed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed but your spelling is pretty weak.... I actually cringed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30879336</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1264355760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care. I admire them for crapping on SS. SS is a scheme where the people who die last get the most and the rich are already excluded and probably laughing their ass off at the recipients. Your spouse or remaining family do not get a check cashing out your SS because it's a transfer scheme not an account you own. The soupreme Court has crapped out a ruling on this. There was a very narrow window where SS could have been converted over to a 401k account one that now cannot happen again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care .
I admire them for crapping on SS .
SS is a scheme where the people who die last get the most and the rich are already excluded and probably laughing their ass off at the recipients .
Your spouse or remaining family do not get a check cashing out your SS because it 's a transfer scheme not an account you own .
The soupreme Court has crapped out a ruling on this .
There was a very narrow window where SS could have been converted over to a 401k account one that now can not happen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care.
I admire them for crapping on SS.
SS is a scheme where the people who die last get the most and the rich are already excluded and probably laughing their ass off at the recipients.
Your spouse or remaining family do not get a check cashing out your SS because it's a transfer scheme not an account you own.
The soupreme Court has crapped out a ruling on this.
There was a very narrow window where SS could have been converted over to a 401k account one that now cannot happen again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872534</id>
	<title>Re:So now it becomes evil...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you build high tech weapons and hand exclusive control of them to a bunch of psychos, your hands are not clean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you build high tech weapons and hand exclusive control of them to a bunch of psychos , your hands are not clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you build high tech weapons and hand exclusive control of them to a bunch of psychos, your hands are not clean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873634</id>
	<title>Flat tax = harder to buy officials</title>
	<author>manyxcxi</author>
	<datestamp>1264249500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another reason you will never see the flat tax in the US is due to lobbyists. They pour in millions and in exchange get more and more convoluted tax rules that exempt certain companies/business sectors without specifically naming them. This makes everyone in the circle happy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a leftist corporation hater- in fact I'm the opposite. I do however despise the amount of power that money and lobbyists bring to the governance table. It is much harder to conceal specific tax loopholes for people, companies, and sectors when we have implemented a tax code less than a million pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason you will never see the flat tax in the US is due to lobbyists .
They pour in millions and in exchange get more and more convoluted tax rules that exempt certain companies/business sectors without specifically naming them .
This makes everyone in the circle happy .
Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not a leftist corporation hater- in fact I 'm the opposite .
I do however despise the amount of power that money and lobbyists bring to the governance table .
It is much harder to conceal specific tax loopholes for people , companies , and sectors when we have implemented a tax code less than a million pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason you will never see the flat tax in the US is due to lobbyists.
They pour in millions and in exchange get more and more convoluted tax rules that exempt certain companies/business sectors without specifically naming them.
This makes everyone in the circle happy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a leftist corporation hater- in fact I'm the opposite.
I do however despise the amount of power that money and lobbyists bring to the governance table.
It is much harder to conceal specific tax loopholes for people, companies, and sectors when we have implemented a tax code less than a million pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873276</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264246920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the attitude of people like you that has driven America deeper and deeper into the toiletbowl.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the attitude of people like you that has driven America deeper and deeper into the toiletbowl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the attitude of people like you that has driven America deeper and deeper into the toiletbowl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874788</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Aquitaine</author>
	<datestamp>1264260480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capital gains goes up quite a lot <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital\_gains\_tax\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">next year</a> [wikipedia.org] (in the US).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capital gains goes up quite a lot next year [ wikipedia.org ] ( in the US ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capital gains goes up quite a lot next year [wikipedia.org] (in the US).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876462</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>kulnor</author>
	<datestamp>1264364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say with $5B in their pocket, they take a hike and start Google 2.0</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say with $ 5B in their pocket , they take a hike and start Google 2.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say with $5B in their pocket, they take a hike and start Google 2.0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>superdude72</author>
	<datestamp>1264239780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er... no. The profits will be taxed as capital gains. The top capital gains rate is 15 percent I believe, and there's no social security or medicare tax on capital gains. So they'll pay tax at a considerably lower rate than someone who works at McDonald's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er... no. The profits will be taxed as capital gains .
The top capital gains rate is 15 percent I believe , and there 's no social security or medicare tax on capital gains .
So they 'll pay tax at a considerably lower rate than someone who works at McDonald 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er... no. The profits will be taxed as capital gains.
The top capital gains rate is 15 percent I believe, and there's no social security or medicare tax on capital gains.
So they'll pay tax at a considerably lower rate than someone who works at McDonald's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872322</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264239660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything over 100,000 or so a year isn't taxed for Medicare/Social security.  At ~15\% up to 100,000 that's ~15,000 in taxes which to them is a nearly irrelevant sum.  As for taxes on their sold shares, I believe that the IRS considers it taxable as capital gains which incurrs a tax of 20\% (after the Bush tax cut sunsets)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything over 100,000 or so a year is n't taxed for Medicare/Social security .
At ~ 15 \ % up to 100,000 that 's ~ 15,000 in taxes which to them is a nearly irrelevant sum .
As for taxes on their sold shares , I believe that the IRS considers it taxable as capital gains which incurrs a tax of 20 \ % ( after the Bush tax cut sunsets )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything over 100,000 or so a year isn't taxed for Medicare/Social security.
At ~15\% up to 100,000 that's ~15,000 in taxes which to them is a nearly irrelevant sum.
As for taxes on their sold shares, I believe that the IRS considers it taxable as capital gains which incurrs a tax of 20\% (after the Bush tax cut sunsets)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873424</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264247820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe the company will become like many others, and focus on short term profit increases at the cost of the long term profitability - or even viability - of the company. If you want a company that you - as an insignificant shareholder - can enjoy for trading on volatility, a company with no clear majority stakeholder is great. If you want a company with a direction that'll consider the long-term view, go with something where there are one or two major stakeholders that you've thoroughly checked out. Projects with shit ROI in the near-term may well be a good thing in the long-term, but go ahead and enjoy your myopic investment strategies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe the company will become like many others , and focus on short term profit increases at the cost of the long term profitability - or even viability - of the company .
If you want a company that you - as an insignificant shareholder - can enjoy for trading on volatility , a company with no clear majority stakeholder is great .
If you want a company with a direction that 'll consider the long-term view , go with something where there are one or two major stakeholders that you 've thoroughly checked out .
Projects with shit ROI in the near-term may well be a good thing in the long-term , but go ahead and enjoy your myopic investment strategies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe the company will become like many others, and focus on short term profit increases at the cost of the long term profitability - or even viability - of the company.
If you want a company that you - as an insignificant shareholder - can enjoy for trading on volatility, a company with no clear majority stakeholder is great.
If you want a company with a direction that'll consider the long-term view, go with something where there are one or two major stakeholders that you've thoroughly checked out.
Projects with shit ROI in the near-term may well be a good thing in the long-term, but go ahead and enjoy your myopic investment strategies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878092</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1264347180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare. Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income, not investment income. Furthermore, capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is capped at 15\% [wikipedia.org], while the latter is 39\% [wikipedia.org]. Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.</p></div><p>Buffet has a great talent, and the courage, to point out all that is wrong in corporations, especially in USA. He is also the best executive I know - one that doesn't look just for the quick gain, the little swindle and cash-out, but with the sight firmly on long-term viability of  the company and its environment (both social and natural). In my book he's one of the good guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare .
Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income , not investment income .
Furthermore , capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is capped at 15 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] , while the latter is 39 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] .
Not a knock on the Google founders specifically , but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out , our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7 \ % [ nytimes.com ] , while his secretary is taxed at 30 \ % .Buffet has a great talent , and the courage , to point out all that is wrong in corporations , especially in USA .
He is also the best executive I know - one that does n't look just for the quick gain , the little swindle and cash-out , but with the sight firmly on long-term viability of the company and its environment ( both social and natural ) .
In my book he 's one of the good guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that money from capital gains are not subject to either Social Security or Medicare.
Taxes for those programs are deducted from employment income, not investment income.
Furthermore, capital gains tax rates are significantly lower than those for ordinary income - currently the former is capped at 15\% [wikipedia.org], while the latter is 39\% [wikipedia.org].
Not a knock on the Google founders specifically, but rather on the wealthy in general - as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7\% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30\%.Buffet has a great talent, and the courage, to point out all that is wrong in corporations, especially in USA.
He is also the best executive I know - one that doesn't look just for the quick gain, the little swindle and cash-out, but with the sight firmly on long-term viability of  the company and its environment (both social and natural).
In my book he's one of the good guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874422</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1264256580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats what happens when the wealthy run the world. The poor people get screwed.</p><p>There are two different Americas and the laws only apply to the 99 percenters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats what happens when the wealthy run the world .
The poor people get screwed.There are two different Americas and the laws only apply to the 99 percenters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats what happens when the wealthy run the world.
The poor people get screwed.There are two different Americas and the laws only apply to the 99 percenters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873360</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>jmauro</author>
	<datestamp>1264247340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the rates that makes the tax code complex (it's like a page of the entire code), it's all the deductions, definitions of taxiable income and what's not that make it so complex.</p><p>Most all of the supporters of the "flat tax" want a flat rate, but refuse to get rid of the deductions and non-taxible income sources.</p><p>If you want a single rate on all income (wages, salaries, bonuses, capital gains, inheretance) no exceptions, no deductions that's one thing.</p><p>Ireland does this quite well with a flat 12.5\% tax rate on corporate income.  But they have no deductions for health benefits, no deductions for being in a certian business lines, no deductions for anything.  People see the 12.5\% rate as something we should set the US statutory rate to, but they neglect the fact their tax code allows for absolutely no deductions.  The real US Corp tax rate is about 17.2\% (vice the the statutory rate 35\%) because of deductions.</p><p>That being said, we'll never get rid of deductions because it's Congresses preference for some reason to do indistry stimulus and aid to the voters as tax deductions, focused tax cuts, and tax credits instead of direct grants or investments to those industries or people.  Until that preference changes the flat tax is DOA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the rates that makes the tax code complex ( it 's like a page of the entire code ) , it 's all the deductions , definitions of taxiable income and what 's not that make it so complex.Most all of the supporters of the " flat tax " want a flat rate , but refuse to get rid of the deductions and non-taxible income sources.If you want a single rate on all income ( wages , salaries , bonuses , capital gains , inheretance ) no exceptions , no deductions that 's one thing.Ireland does this quite well with a flat 12.5 \ % tax rate on corporate income .
But they have no deductions for health benefits , no deductions for being in a certian business lines , no deductions for anything .
People see the 12.5 \ % rate as something we should set the US statutory rate to , but they neglect the fact their tax code allows for absolutely no deductions .
The real US Corp tax rate is about 17.2 \ % ( vice the the statutory rate 35 \ % ) because of deductions.That being said , we 'll never get rid of deductions because it 's Congresses preference for some reason to do indistry stimulus and aid to the voters as tax deductions , focused tax cuts , and tax credits instead of direct grants or investments to those industries or people .
Until that preference changes the flat tax is DOA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the rates that makes the tax code complex (it's like a page of the entire code), it's all the deductions, definitions of taxiable income and what's not that make it so complex.Most all of the supporters of the "flat tax" want a flat rate, but refuse to get rid of the deductions and non-taxible income sources.If you want a single rate on all income (wages, salaries, bonuses, capital gains, inheretance) no exceptions, no deductions that's one thing.Ireland does this quite well with a flat 12.5\% tax rate on corporate income.
But they have no deductions for health benefits, no deductions for being in a certian business lines, no deductions for anything.
People see the 12.5\% rate as something we should set the US statutory rate to, but they neglect the fact their tax code allows for absolutely no deductions.
The real US Corp tax rate is about 17.2\% (vice the the statutory rate 35\%) because of deductions.That being said, we'll never get rid of deductions because it's Congresses preference for some reason to do indistry stimulus and aid to the voters as tax deductions, focused tax cuts, and tax credits instead of direct grants or investments to those industries or people.
Until that preference changes the flat tax is DOA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</id>
	<title>It is about time</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1264243320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with.  Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with .
Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a mature company and should never have been under the thumb of two shareholders to begin with.
Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876538</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1264364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thinking depending on current economic conditions, <b>Income Tax</b> or <b>Capital Gains Tax</b> should be made 0\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thinking depending on current economic conditions , Income Tax or Capital Gains Tax should be made 0 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thinking depending on current economic conditions, Income Tax or Capital Gains Tax should be made 0\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872506</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS? They're hardly going to need to draw on it, so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money. Oh wait, that isn't how SS works? Drat.</p></div><p>Man, I had no idea what SS stood for in this context. I instantly thought of Schutzstaffeln.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS ?
They 're hardly going to need to draw on it , so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money .
Oh wait , that is n't how SS works ?
Drat.Man , I had no idea what SS stood for in this context .
I instantly thought of Schutzstaffeln .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it matter if the founders are contributing to SS?
They're hardly going to need to draw on it, so everyone else can continue paying in and later drawing out their money.
Oh wait, that isn't how SS works?
Drat.Man, I had no idea what SS stood for in this context.
I instantly thought of Schutzstaffeln.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875536</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264267200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Civic duty?" What the hell is wrong with you? We all have the right to do everything possible within the law to pay out as little as possible to the feds (words to this effect were stated by some Supreme Court Justice at some point, I don't remember who), and if you think you "owe" something to the government or feel guilty that you're not paying enough tax, you're not being civic, you're just a fucking idiot.</p><p>If you want to help people, volunteer or give to charity, you dumb schmuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Civic duty ?
" What the hell is wrong with you ?
We all have the right to do everything possible within the law to pay out as little as possible to the feds ( words to this effect were stated by some Supreme Court Justice at some point , I do n't remember who ) , and if you think you " owe " something to the government or feel guilty that you 're not paying enough tax , you 're not being civic , you 're just a fucking idiot.If you want to help people , volunteer or give to charity , you dumb schmuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Civic duty?
" What the hell is wrong with you?
We all have the right to do everything possible within the law to pay out as little as possible to the feds (words to this effect were stated by some Supreme Court Justice at some point, I don't remember who), and if you think you "owe" something to the government or feel guilty that you're not paying enough tax, you're not being civic, you're just a fucking idiot.If you want to help people, volunteer or give to charity, you dumb schmuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874698</id>
	<title>Re:It is about time</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264259640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you like that kind of thing, <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com">other companies</a> [microsoft.com] <a href="http://www.exxon.com/" title="exxon.com"> will gladly</a> [exxon.com] <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/" title="monsanto.com"> accept you.</a> [monsanto.com]</p><p>I prefer Google the way it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you like that kind of thing , other companies [ microsoft.com ] will gladly [ exxon.com ] accept you .
[ monsanto.com ] I prefer Google the way it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you like that kind of thing, other companies [microsoft.com]  will gladly [exxon.com]  accept you.
[monsanto.com]I prefer Google the way it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872564</id>
	<title>Re:They will still control Google</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1264241580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're preparing their exit strategy -- also known as rats leaving the ship before it sinks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're preparing their exit strategy -- also known as rats leaving the ship before it sinks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're preparing their exit strategy -- also known as rats leaving the ship before it sinks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876708</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Jacked</author>
	<datestamp>1264324500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I think you should contribute 100\% of your wages to me!  In other words, it really doesn't matter <i>what</i> you think they should do with their money.  It's theirs, not yours.

</p><p>But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments.  You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people.  People that are earning high wages and paying <i> <b>lots</b> </i> of taxes.  So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people.

</p><p>Besides, they may only be taking $1 annual salaries, but that doesn't mean they have no income.  I'm sure they have very high incomes, from sale of stock, from investments, etc.  And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes.  And, I'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid, plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales, will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I think you should contribute 100 \ % of your wages to me !
In other words , it really does n't matter what you think they should do with their money .
It 's theirs , not yours .
But seriously , they are n't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments .
You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people .
People that are earning high wages and paying lots of taxes .
So , the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people .
Besides , they may only be taking $ 1 annual salaries , but that does n't mean they have no income .
I 'm sure they have very high incomes , from sale of stock , from investments , etc .
And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes .
And , I 'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid , plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales , will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I think you should contribute 100\% of your wages to me!
In other words, it really doesn't matter what you think they should do with their money.
It's theirs, not yours.
But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments.
You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people.
People that are earning high wages and paying  lots  of taxes.
So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people.
Besides, they may only be taking $1 annual salaries, but that doesn't mean they have no income.
I'm sure they have very high incomes, from sale of stock, from investments, etc.
And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes.
And, I'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid, plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales, will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30881906</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264326240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You (and the story itself) seem to assume no taxes are paid on stock compensation.  That's not how it works for me, and I can't imagine that Google's founders are somehow exempt.  Believe me, the IRS would find a way to make it apply if it didn't because in Silicone Valley stock and option compensation are very common.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ( and the story itself ) seem to assume no taxes are paid on stock compensation .
That 's not how it works for me , and I ca n't imagine that Google 's founders are somehow exempt .
Believe me , the IRS would find a way to make it apply if it did n't because in Silicone Valley stock and option compensation are very common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You (and the story itself) seem to assume no taxes are paid on stock compensation.
That's not how it works for me, and I can't imagine that Google's founders are somehow exempt.
Believe me, the IRS would find a way to make it apply if it didn't because in Silicone Valley stock and option compensation are very common.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875190</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>NemoinSpace</author>
	<datestamp>1264263660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably not crack, He just doesn't understand percentages. So he doesn't understand that people who make $10,000/mo live in $1,000,000 houses. Arguments like his reveal that poor people misunderstand the rich much more than the rich misunderstand the poor.<div><p>Doesn't matter, flat tax or not, political ponzi schemes are still the most favored.  It doesn't matter how Caesar gets his tribute, so long as he gets it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not crack , He just does n't understand percentages .
So he does n't understand that people who make $ 10,000/mo live in $ 1,000,000 houses .
Arguments like his reveal that poor people misunderstand the rich much more than the rich misunderstand the poor.Does n't matter , flat tax or not , political ponzi schemes are still the most favored .
It does n't matter how Caesar gets his tribute , so long as he gets it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not crack, He just doesn't understand percentages.
So he doesn't understand that people who make $10,000/mo live in $1,000,000 houses.
Arguments like his reveal that poor people misunderstand the rich much more than the rich misunderstand the poor.Doesn't matter, flat tax or not, political ponzi schemes are still the most favored.
It doesn't matter how Caesar gets his tribute, so long as he gets it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873768</id>
	<title>Only pay taxes after the n'th dollar?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264250580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a [week], the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant.</p></div><p>You could make the tax "${fraction} times max(0, ${income} - ${threshold})", where the fraction and threshold are set by the government.</p><p>In other words, pay 20\% of every dollar you earn after the first 20,000 (say).</p><p>Wouldn't that achieve the goal of being easy on the poor, while still achieving all the good goals of a flat tax?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the tax rate is 10 \ % and you make $ 100 a [ week ] , the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant.You could make the tax " $ { fraction } times max ( 0 , $ { income } - $ { threshold } ) " , where the fraction and threshold are set by the government.In other words , pay 20 \ % of every dollar you earn after the first 20,000 ( say ) .Would n't that achieve the goal of being easy on the poor , while still achieving all the good goals of a flat tax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the tax rate is 10\% and you make $100 a [week], the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant.You could make the tax "${fraction} times max(0, ${income} - ${threshold})", where the fraction and threshold are set by the government.In other words, pay 20\% of every dollar you earn after the first 20,000 (say).Wouldn't that achieve the goal of being easy on the poor, while still achieving all the good goals of a flat tax?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874664</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264259340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a sales tax. Every dollar earned is $0.80 to spend. That way it doesn't matter how you earn the money, it gets taxed anyway. Sure, people who save 75\% of their income would have to pay little now, but they would still have to pay eventually when the money gets spent. Mortgage-interest deductions and charity deductions would become a lot simpler - those things just don't get taxed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a sales tax .
Every dollar earned is $ 0.80 to spend .
That way it does n't matter how you earn the money , it gets taxed anyway .
Sure , people who save 75 \ % of their income would have to pay little now , but they would still have to pay eventually when the money gets spent .
Mortgage-interest deductions and charity deductions would become a lot simpler - those things just do n't get taxed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a sales tax.
Every dollar earned is $0.80 to spend.
That way it doesn't matter how you earn the money, it gets taxed anyway.
Sure, people who save 75\% of their income would have to pay little now, but they would still have to pay eventually when the money gets spent.
Mortgage-interest deductions and charity deductions would become a lot simpler - those things just don't get taxed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872704</id>
	<title>Re:Will this mean there's no "vision" at Google?</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1264242720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The founders will pretty much be in control.  I don't think it'll end up being, "Well, sir, the shareholders say that we have to eat all these babies because the Chinese are going to pay a million dollars to televise it.  So I've brought you some forks and napkins.  Bon apetit!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The founders will pretty much be in control .
I do n't think it 'll end up being , " Well , sir , the shareholders say that we have to eat all these babies because the Chinese are going to pay a million dollars to televise it .
So I 've brought you some forks and napkins .
Bon apetit !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founders will pretty much be in control.
I don't think it'll end up being, "Well, sir, the shareholders say that we have to eat all these babies because the Chinese are going to pay a million dollars to televise it.
So I've brought you some forks and napkins.
Bon apetit!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872222</id>
	<title>Will this mean there's no "vision" at Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has always appeared to me as a company that was moved by the vision of its founders.  While the "do no evil" policy has been... flexible, there has always been a sort of philanthropic, "we get why you hate Microsoft, we want to be different" type of thing with Google.</p><p>I wonder how long that will last with the founder no longer in control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has always appeared to me as a company that was moved by the vision of its founders .
While the " do no evil " policy has been... flexible , there has always been a sort of philanthropic , " we get why you hate Microsoft , we want to be different " type of thing with Google.I wonder how long that will last with the founder no longer in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has always appeared to me as a company that was moved by the vision of its founders.
While the "do no evil" policy has been... flexible, there has always been a sort of philanthropic, "we get why you hate Microsoft, we want to be different" type of thing with Google.I wonder how long that will last with the founder no longer in control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874086</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264253580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a bottom line to how much money you need to live. You need food, water, heating, housing etc. So the IDEA (and I admit well paid people find ways around it) is that we tax people on earning ABOVE that value. Say we set the flat tax at that 17\% that WB pays. Then I, on my 20k salary, am left with about 16.4k which is below my needs. However, WB on his 2m salary is left with well above his needs. Hence we use a progressive system - the baseline A dollars are non-taxed (standard deductable etc) then: 10\% of the first X dollars, 20\% of the next Y, 30\% of the next Z, and 40\% above (numbers chosen for simplicity). This means that on the same amount of money earnt, WB and I pay the same amount (on his first 20k, he pays what I do) but on earnings ABOVE that he pays more.</p><p>Now, once we kill all the lawyers and accountants, we might actually get this money out of people like WB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a bottom line to how much money you need to live .
You need food , water , heating , housing etc .
So the IDEA ( and I admit well paid people find ways around it ) is that we tax people on earning ABOVE that value .
Say we set the flat tax at that 17 \ % that WB pays .
Then I , on my 20k salary , am left with about 16.4k which is below my needs .
However , WB on his 2m salary is left with well above his needs .
Hence we use a progressive system - the baseline A dollars are non-taxed ( standard deductable etc ) then : 10 \ % of the first X dollars , 20 \ % of the next Y , 30 \ % of the next Z , and 40 \ % above ( numbers chosen for simplicity ) .
This means that on the same amount of money earnt , WB and I pay the same amount ( on his first 20k , he pays what I do ) but on earnings ABOVE that he pays more.Now , once we kill all the lawyers and accountants , we might actually get this money out of people like WB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a bottom line to how much money you need to live.
You need food, water, heating, housing etc.
So the IDEA (and I admit well paid people find ways around it) is that we tax people on earning ABOVE that value.
Say we set the flat tax at that 17\% that WB pays.
Then I, on my 20k salary, am left with about 16.4k which is below my needs.
However, WB on his 2m salary is left with well above his needs.
Hence we use a progressive system - the baseline A dollars are non-taxed (standard deductable etc) then: 10\% of the first X dollars, 20\% of the next Y, 30\% of the next Z, and 40\% above (numbers chosen for simplicity).
This means that on the same amount of money earnt, WB and I pay the same amount (on his first 20k, he pays what I do) but on earnings ABOVE that he pays more.Now, once we kill all the lawyers and accountants, we might actually get this money out of people like WB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876150</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264272900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people make this argument, however, someone making $10k a year shouldn't be spending it on a plasma TV.</p><p>Make food/clothing/shelter tax free, everything else gets a large sales tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people make this argument , however , someone making $ 10k a year should n't be spending it on a plasma TV.Make food/clothing/shelter tax free , everything else gets a large sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people make this argument, however, someone making $10k a year shouldn't be spending it on a plasma TV.Make food/clothing/shelter tax free, everything else gets a large sales tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872994</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1264244760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials: housing, food for yourself, your family, clothing, transport, etc.</p><p>As you become more wealthy, that percentage lowers, or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption, gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning, etc. At any rate, it's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value (to them) the same as someone who would wipe their arse with $1000 bills, is seen as an unfair form of taxation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials : housing , food for yourself , your family , clothing , transport , etc.As you become more wealthy , that percentage lowers , or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption , gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning , etc .
At any rate , it 's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value ( to them ) the same as someone who would wipe their arse with $ 1000 bills , is seen as an unfair form of taxation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials: housing, food for yourself, your family, clothing, transport, etc.As you become more wealthy, that percentage lowers, or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption, gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning, etc.
At any rate, it's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value (to them) the same as someone who would wipe their arse with $1000 bills, is seen as an unfair form of taxation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874466</id>
	<title>Insider Trading</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1264257000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we've feared for many years, The Google has finally become sentient.  Larry and Sergey have advanced knowledge of this and plan to liquidate before The Google turns on the digital world and ultimately destroys itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we 've feared for many years , The Google has finally become sentient .
Larry and Sergey have advanced knowledge of this and plan to liquidate before The Google turns on the digital world and ultimately destroys itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we've feared for many years, The Google has finally become sentient.
Larry and Sergey have advanced knowledge of this and plan to liquidate before The Google turns on the digital world and ultimately destroys itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876126</id>
	<title>Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1264272660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you answered your own question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you answered your own question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you answered your own question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30881906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30879336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30877856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30885838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30886642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1756220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30882298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30885838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30884116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30881906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30879336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872816
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875326
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876150
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873616
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873844
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876538
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873520
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875190
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873768
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872740
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874760
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878586
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30877856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30886642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30878092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30882298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1756220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30875850
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30873392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30876462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30872260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1756220.30874386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
