<![CDATA[Consumerist: citizens]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: citizens]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/citizens http://consumerist.com/tag/citizens <![CDATA[ Corporations: "Tax-es? What Are These Things You Call Tax-es?" ]]> con_corporatefatcat.jpgHope you enjoyed your tax burden this year, because you're helping carry the weight of loophole-savvy corporations that enjoy many of the legal benefits of real, live human citizens, but exist in a weird, semi-tax-free world.
A 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 61% of American corporations, including 39% of large companies, paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. Last year, corporations shouldered just 14.4% of the total U.S. tax burden, compared with about 50% in 1940.

Stats from the Congressional Budget Office show a trend toward individual citizens paying more in the years to come, and corporate "citizens" paying even less:

The tax burden on individuals is expected to climb from $1.16 trillion in 2007 to $1.21 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while corporate tax receipts are expected to decline from $370 billion to $364 billion. By 2013, the CBO estimates, ordinary taxpayers' bills may climb to $1.86 trillion while corporate tax bills drop to $327 billion.

"Are You Paying For Corporate Fat Cats?" [Parade] (Thanks to Michael!)
(Photo: danperry.com)

]]>
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:28:30 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381725&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Go Daddy Refutes Censorship Claim ]]> con_ratemycop300.jpg The reader who sent Go Daddy an email asking why they shut down RateMyCop.com received a response in which they emphatically denied any censorship—this was all about a customer exceeding his contracted server usage limits and nothing else, they say. Read their full response after the jump.

Mr. [redacted]:

The situation with the Web site RateMyCop was absolutely NOT about censorship in ANY way.

The site's operator has publicly disclosed the concerns were over bandwidth. More accurately, Go Daddy's concerns were about how the RateMyCop site was far exceeding the amount of server usage for which it had contracted.

This customer paid for a shared server plan. The connections to his site were six times more than an entire 'shared server' accommodates. While he was paying for a service that cost $14.99 a month, his site actually required a much more extensive set-up.

Basically, he was paying for compact car, when he really needed a semi-truck.

The customer was not willing to work with our staff to resolve the issue.

While the "censorship" allegations certainly make for an edgy "story," they simply had nothing to do with this situation.

- Go Daddy
Office of the President

(Thanks to Mike!)

"Go Daddy Shuts Down RateMyCop Watchdog Site"
"GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com" [Wired]

RELATED
RateMyCop.com

]]>
Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:19:47 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=367179&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Go Daddy Shuts Down RateMyCop Watchdog Site ]]> Yesterday, Go Daddy pulled the plug on RateMyCop.com, which has been criticized by law enforcement officials for allegedly putting police officers in danger by listing their names and in some cases badge numbers. Visitors can then add comments and post critiques or praise about specific cops in their area. The website collected its officer data via public information requests, and no personal information is used, nor are undercover agents revealed. Still, law enforcement officials are upset at the exposure. When the site's owner, Gino Sesto, called Go Daddy, he was first told it was removed due to "suspicious activity," but then the reason was changed by a supervisor to an exceeded bandwidth cap, which Sesto disputes. Update: Go Daddy responded to our reader's email and said taking the site offline had nothing to do with censorship.

One Consumerist reader sent Go Daddy the following letter this morning to voice his concerns that the company might be selectively censoring content (which certainly is within Go Daddy's right, but might turn off some customers):

I am writing to express my concern over Go Daddy's recent action in taking down the "RateMyCop.com" site hosted for one of your customers. Recent media attention has raised some controversy and your action was to suspend the site and post an "oops" page asking for the site's owner to contact you.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of "RateMyCop" or its message, the content of this site did not violate any laws, nor did it violate any normal standards of decency. That Go Daddy would censor this site, without warning or consultation to the site's owner, is deeply troubling to me.

I have been a Go Daddy customer for many years, and recently went through significant steps to transfer the last of my domains from previous registrars/hosts to consolidate under Go Daddy. I am now seriously considering taking my business elsewhere.

My domains are "hobby" websites, which I'm sure makes them very profitable for Go Daddy because I pay for Premium level services but place very little load on your systems, in that traffic is steady but not massive. I pay for this type of hosting so that I have absolute control over the content and presentation of my domains, free from advertising, bias, or other restrictions.

If Go Daddy is going to insist that constitutional protections extending to publications on other media do not apply when published on Go Daddy's servers, then I'm afraid I will feel the need to publish my speech elsewhere. And I promise to do so in as noisy and spectacular a manner as possible.

I look forward to hearing your response, and furthermore hope that you will reconsider your policies regarding censoring the content of the sites you are paid to publish.


(Thanks to Mike!)

"GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com" [Wired]

RELATED
RateMyCop.com

]]>
Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:24:12 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=367118&view=rss&microfeed=true