SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the wish-we-were-in-the-one-percent dept.
Due to completely messed up U.S. tax policies, some even got a rebate check. Only small businesses pay taxes. Big companies often pay nothing at all.
Look at a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice ( http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VSbihhPF8QY ), a Washington, D.C. group. It finds that some of nation's most famous brands have paid remarkably little to the government over the last five years. In fact, many actually enjoyed a negative tax rate: They received a nice rebate check from the U.S. Treasury.
The 15 giants highlighted by CTJ were chosen to represent a wide range of industries among Fortune 500 companies. They include CBS, Mattel, Prudential, and the California utility PG&E. Together, they paid no federal income tax in 2014, despite profits totaling $23 billion. CTJ's point is that these companies are not anomalies, they are examples.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:04AM
When I pay for a sandwich at Quiznos, I do it because I want that sandwich (and Quiznos wants my money).
When I paid taxes, I did it either out of flaming ignorance, or more recently, because someone was shoving a gun up my nose and I wasn't willing to defend myself.
A civilization based on slavery is a misnomer. If "civilization" is telling me that their price is chains, they've lost my business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:38AM
> A civilization based on slavery is a misnomer.
Like I said, conclusion as premise. Circular turtles all the way down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:51AM
Gee, I guess slavery IS okay then! You've convinced me! [/sarcasm]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:39AM
It isn't slavery, it's babblebrox.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:09PM
This is my premise: the exclusive owner of a given human body is the human being that inhabits the body in question.
Since the owner of property owns any additional property that the original property produces, it follows that a claim of ownership on a human body's labor is in fact a claim of ownership on the human body itself. Thus, taxation (including but not necessarily limited to the income and sales variety) is slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @02:16AM
Except for, you know, the whole fact that you are still the exclusive owner of your body and everything it produces. Unlike slaves, you do not belong to anyone except yourself; you are free to not work, to leave any time, to do whatever you want, etc. Conflating taxation with slavery is whats known as false analogy. [wikipedia.org] Voluntarily paying a small portion of one's income in exchange for using the benefits provided by taxation is about as far from slavery as you can get.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:40AM
As a rule, I'm generally uninterested in debating with someone who appears to be intentionally resorting to deception. Are you honestly claiming that payment of income taxes is considered to be voluntary [youtube.com] by the US fedgov?
I expect you to have some impressive evidence to back up that claim.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:13AM
Are you honestly claiming that payment of income taxes is considered to be voluntary by the US fedgov?
Yes. You can leave, as stated by 47 other people today.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:45AM
Wrong [irs.gov]. Even renouncing US citizenship is subject to rapidly-increasing fees [forbes.com]/tax.
Though you meant to present the false choice to "physically leave or be a slave/pay tax", as posted previously [soylentnews.org], I have in fact left your plantation.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:48PM
So by "wrong" you mean "actually, correct, you just have to pay a fee and fill out paperwork to renounce your citizenship and then you're golden."
So you're living outside the U.S. but refuse to pay the fee to cut the tie? Man, you're one tough guy to please.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:11PM
Wrong again. Not surprising, though, since you apparently can't be arsed to read [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:54AM
You paid them because you just spent the past year taking advantage of all the benefits paid for by taxes, like roads. If you don't want to pay the cost of living in society, nobody is forcing you to stay. Either pay your fair share or get the fuck out; you do not get to mooch off everyone else without contributing, you fucking self-centered shitbag.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:58AM
People in the mid-1800s South couldn't conceive of a way to run their plantations without slavery. What makes you and your roads any different in principle?
Before I engage you on rooooooaaaaaads [mises.org] or any other free-rider issue, you'll need to state plainly whether or not you believe it is acceptable to force a human to pay for something that the human in question does not want to buy (and why you believe that way).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:35AM
Those people obviously want the benefits provided by living in society, otherwise they would not live and participate in society, so the question is moot. If they do not want the benefits of society, they are free to leave at any time, and I actively encourage all the parasitic fucks who think they are entitled to mooch off everyone else to get the fuck out.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:58AM
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with you. I have left the plantation. I pay only for services I choose to use, and I do not pay for services I do not want (in general, and I continue to take steps to be able to stop funding any service that relies upon force aka slavery to operate). That I still physically live within the borders of the United States may anger you, but as I am well within my authority to behave as I am as a self-owning human being, the situation is one that you'll just have to learn how to deal with in a manner within your own authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:58AM
Which is why you are able to post on the internet without taking advantage of that government enforced bondage known as right of way.
oh...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:16PM
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:16PM
you'll need to state plainly whether or not you believe it is acceptable to force a human to pay for something that the human in question does not want to buy (and why you believe that way).
I'm sure you don't *want* to buy e.g. a candy bar at a store. If you could take it for free, you would.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:53PM
You've made a claim, and now you're being asked to defend that claim. Show your evidence that I opt to steal property I desire from someone rather than pay the seller's price. If you present any evidence, it can be weighed against that which is in my filing cabinet, largely made up of receipts for payment of all manner of goods and services.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:15PM
I never said you opted to. Your abuse of the words "force" and "want" caused me to join in on the fun.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:26PM
Ah, I see now. Yes, that is amusing. Sadly, I am far from perfect. In case your post was intended for more than poking well-deserved fun at the particulars of my syntax:
The US' "Affordable Care Act" aka Obamacare is now a real-world example of an actual attempt by agents of government to force an undesired service upon unwilling buyers. I may want some sort of insurance against a high-cost personal medical mishap, but I absolutely do not want that particular product, "free" nor otherwise.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:50AM
Hell, the population the U.S. couldn't agree to free blowjobs with a gun pointed at their heads and 3 weeks to argue about it.
I'm sure there are lots of people who like the ACA. You know...that thing originally implemented by Mitt Romney in Boston or whatever? But now that Obama's doing it, it must be destroyed. You'll have to pardon me if I can't take you seriously when you whip out an argument like that. (And your previous posts are rather frothy, too.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:00AM
Please be clear about what it is I wrote that you see error in.
As far as decisions forced on populations at gunpoint, I agree that there will always be people unhappy with the decision. The most considerate solution, and the only one allowed to US governments (regardless of who is sitting in the big chair), is to stop trying to force people to do things at gunpoint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:07AM
Income tax does *not* pay for roads. Pretending that it does and concluding that taxing and paying taxes is virtuous is ignorance. Income tax neither pays for roads nor schools nor police departments nor fire departments nor any of the other "services" that most people tie to government. Quit trotting out that tired old canard that demonstrates that you have no idea what the various tax structures accomplish - specifically income tax which is the current topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:46AM
Of course income tax pays for roads. Ultimately all taxes are fungible. That's why the federal highway trust fund has received tens of billions of dollars out of the general treasury over the last few years. As for paying for schools, where do you think the money for Pell grants and all the other forms of federal financial aid comes from?
Just because property taxes cover some of the load doesn't mean income taxes aren't a significant part of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:06AM
Look at the side of the gas pumps next time, genius. See that "gas tax" notice tag? That's what's supposed to pay for the roads. The fact that it often does not is a strike against the idea of having such a monopolistic funding system in the first place. If McDonalds tries to sell you pink slime on a bun and you don't want it, you can always leave and go down to JimBob's O'Realburgers instead. You can leave government, too, though its agents will usually try to chase you down and point guns at you to keep you from leaving. Hm, does that last situation ring any historical bells for you?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:19AM
> Look at the side of the gas pumps next time, genius. See that "gas tax" notice tag?
You mean the guy who knows what the federal highway trust fund is doesn't know what the gas tax is? You've got this circular thing going on where anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and you are super-knowledgable rather than consider the possibility that we all know everything you know because we were once teenagers too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:56AM
You will forgive me for not caring much about the fine details of the facades of a criminal enterprise. I'll venture an educated guess that the federal highway "trust fund" is in similar straits as other "trust funds" the fedgov manages, much like the social security "trust fund" which has long been pilfered and is now used as nothing other than a conduit to obtain more general fedgov spending money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:54AM
You will forgive me for not caring much about the fine details of the facades of a criminal enterprise.
I will condemn you for willful ignorance.
I'll venture an educated guess that the federal highway "trust fund"
Wait, the know it all genius who presumed to instruct me about the gas tax doesn't actually know how the gas tax works?
Know-it-all genius actually is just a snarky know-nothing. What a surprise!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:31AM
Your attempted snide ad hominem doesn't change the fact that the "gas tax" doesn't actually work [google.com], in spite of your holding it forth as some sort of pristine example that justifies its imposition on people at gunpoint. The fine details of fedgov crime are unimportant compared to the fundamental ones, and I will not waste my time over the minutiae of how stolen resources are wasted as opposed to being vocal about the fundamental details that cover the fact that such stolen resources have been stolen in the first place.
Condemn away - it reminds me of a saying about "better to be despised by the despicable", which I suppose goes just as well for those who willingly support the despicable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:23PM
> Your attempted snide ad hominem doesn't change the fact that the "gas tax" doesn't actually work,
Lol. Now that's rich. I was the one who cited the fact that income tax pays for the roads because the gas tax is insufficient.
You were the snarky smartass who told me to look at the sticker on the gas pump because that's the way it is "supposed to be."
Now you are telling me that the way it is supposed to be doesn't actually work and that makes me the dummy.
> "better to be despised by the despicable",
Yes, stroke yourself to sleep now. Your righteous knowledge is a triumph!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:52AM
Money obtained for one purpose and then used for an entirely different purpose is fraud (if such was the intent prior to obtaining monies) or "theft by conversion" (if the intent changed after obtaining monies).
The fact that government agents do something criminal under the guise of legitimacy does not change the criminal nature of the act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:56AM
Where exactly is it defined that your income taxes are not to be used for highway funds?
Oh that's right, like every other loud-mouth pronouncing from on high in this thread you are actually just running your mouth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:36AM
You have the idea of government established with the rule of law completely backwards. Such government isn't allowed to anything its agents want so long as there is no prohibition on such activity - such government exists solely because of law, and as such, can only do that which law (law based on the delegated authority of the individual human) allows it to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:29AM
I agree, capitalist civilizations are not civilization.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:03AM
Wow! I can actually see this! Fauxlosopher, right there at Quizno's. paying for a blowjob sandwich, and here comes the fed, with full auto and incinderary backup, saying, pay up your five percent sales tax, you slacker! And Faux, because he is the real deal and in no way faux, says: "I prefer not to. " (Bartleby the Scrivner, for those of you still stuck on the Hugo illteracy awards). And of course all hell breaks loose, because Faux is always packing and at the end, the 12.5 cents falls out of his hand, covered in blood. His dying words: "Sick temperature tyrannosaurus!" And, of course, "Moron Labia!" Another freeloader bites the dust. We could call him a thug, be evidently that is reserved for people with actual claims of injustice. Semper Fi, Faux! Remember, Freedom isn't free, you have to pay, so really it is not freedom at all,
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:20PM
Freedom costs a buck oh five.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"