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, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:57AM
That's for your representative to determine. However, one's "fair" contribution is determined by their capabilities; we as a species has mostly grown past the idea that anyone who is unable to provide for themselves should just be left to die, but the price for this is that others must contribute a little bit more to compensate, and those who have more than everyone else are more capable of contributing than those with nothing. Everyone who isn't a selfish fuckwad considers this a good thing, and even those selfish fuckwads are glad such things exist when bad luck hits and they end up unemployed, homeless, and/or bankrupt.
No, childless couples should also fund schools because everyone benefits from an educated populace, except for those wishing to exploit them. A populace with a higher overall education will have more opportunities, more entrepreneurs, and better services, which will create even more opportunities and more benefits for future generations.
The specifics of how taxes are handled (collected and spent for everyone's benefit) is something for which the government is required. However, road tax is paid by everyone - the entire interstate system was created for the federal military, in order to move troops and equipment around, however the citizens are the ones who benefit from it most. Anything which benefits everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority like roads and education, should be paid for by everyone. Other than that, taxes should come from those most able to afford them; sales and usage taxes sound good and fair but they unfairly punish the poor because they need literally every cent just to scrape by, while those with plenty of wealth would have no problems continuing to live in luxury even if they lost all of their liquid assets.
You move, duh. There's still plenty of wilderness out there in the world, many untouched forests, plains, mountains, islands, and deserts that are essentially uninhabited. It probably won't even require leaving the country in which you live - just go "off grid" and live in the wilderness.
Society doesn't really owe you anything. Society is based around the idea of a collective, more than just yourself; it provides benefits for everyone, far more than any one person would have alone, but the requirement for that is that everyone pitch in, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. Society is not a business venture, but it is an investment for everyone not just yourself. If you can't handle the idea of people other than yourself benefiting from anything you do, there's a word for that - sociopath. Way back in the day, anyone who refused to contribute was exiled from the village, and back then exile meant death. Its a shame we've grown too large to do that now, because its desperately needed.
That's because you live in a representative democracy. You elect somebody to represent you, your interests, and the interests of your community, and if they fail to do so stop fucking re-electing them. Unfortunately this system has been purchased entirely and reduced to nothing more than a way to funnel money from the poor to the rich, but thats only because idiots not only allowed it to happen but actively pushed the system towards that.
If you don't like the social contracts in an area, you move. Like the idiots upthread say about the completely-bought voting system, "you always have a choice", except in this case you really do - if you are unable to have a say in the creation of the contract (in the US, you don't on the federal level due to the system being broken but you still have a say for local and state), you're free to walk to another town, state, or country until you find one with a social contract that you agree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:15AM
There are more choices available to a person who doesn't like your "social contract" than those you present.
In the USA, the only authority that any "social contract" can have is that which does not exceed the authority used to create the USA. As the current version of the USA was created via the Philadelphia Convention's production of the US Constitution, and the source of the Convention's authority was delegated to it by the individual voter, the authority of the US fedgov cannot legitimately exceed anything that any random individual can do.
I cannot use my individual authority to justifiably force you to give me money for any purpose whatsoever; neither does the US fedgov have that authority as fedgov authority is a derivative of my own!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:08AM
and the source of the Convention's authority was delegated to it by the individual voter, the authority of the US fedgov cannot legitimately exceed anything that any random individual can do.
I don't see how the latter follows from the former.
Even if it does, an individual could - in a pre-constitution lawless land - do exactly what you say. He could "force" someone to give him money by threatening to imprison him, or hit him, with no legal ramifications. Of course, he'd have no protection from the (non-existent) law if the "client" decided to fight back...
So, there's your delegated authority.
I cannot use my individual authority to justifiably force you to give me money for any purpose whatsoever; neither does the US fedgov have that authority as fedgov authority is a derivative of my own!
You can't use your individual authority to "justifiably" (whatever that means) detain someone for any purpose whatsoever, either, so I guess that means you think no-one should be in prison.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:41PM
I've written about two pages' worth of directly-related material in two journal [soylentnews.org] entries [soylentnews.org]. Such is my attempt to distill the core concepts of individual self-ownership, delegated authority, and the consequences of violating such principles from the perspective of a modern-day USian into a form that can be quickly read and attacked by critics. If the ideas I present fall to scrutiny, that is a good thing, as the ideas I presented were wrong. I will then see if there appears to be any truth remaining in the rubble, and attempt to extract it from the failure and try again to test the idea for weakness.
If instead the ideas are found to be sound after a critical examination, then I challenge the examiners to use them to test their own premises.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:02AM
Except for, you know, those powers specifically granted to the US Federal Government by the Constitution. Like taxation (Article I, Section 8).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:37PM
...and also official sanction of slavery via the 3/5ths recognition clause. Oh, I'm sorry - were you under the impression that I hold the Constitution out as an example of perfection? I do not, as the Constitution is obviously flawed as you yourself pointed out.
Slavery cannot be justly imposed by the authority of an individual, regardless of whether the chosen vector is skin coloration, economic capacity, or any other manner that claims to exert ownership of one human by another.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:40PM
That's for your representative to determine.
Nobody asked me if I want anyone else to make these decisions for me. The modern society does not need to send representatives, on horses, to a faraway city to make laws that are mandatory for everyone. This was necessary 200 years ago, but perhaps lawmaking should be moved from backrooms into the public arena? Nobody says that every voter has to be a lawyer, and referendums are perfectly legal. Just issue everyone a certificate on a USB stick, so that they can vote electronically.
However, one's "fair" contribution is determined by their capabilities
I thought that "fair" relates to equality before law. But it appears that some have to share more, percentage-wise, than others, just because some socialists think that a millionaire should live on $30K per year, and all the rest of his income should be confiscated by the government.
No, childless couples should also fund schools because everyone benefits from an educated populace
It amounts to extortion: "Pay for education of Little Johnny, or else he becomes a street robber and robs you." I do not like extortionists, and I believe that Little Johnny should not be my problem. A simple example: a neighbor with eight kids moves in, and then comes to you and tells you to pay him $1000/mo because otherwise his kids will break into your house and steal things. How would you react?
Anything which benefits everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority like roads and education, should be paid for by everyone.
I haven't said anything against financing the police and the fire department because everyone, rich and poor, may need their help with more or less equal probability. (Well, a bit higher for the poor, but that's details.) However even roads do not benefit everyone equally. If you do not own a car and do not drive you pay no DMV fees and you don't pay gas taxes. Your contribution to road construction becomes very small.
those with plenty of wealth would have no problems continuing to live in luxury even if they lost all of their liquid assets.
Yes, I'm sure there are many who would like to spend someone else's money. No doubt. It's much easier to steal someone's money than to earn it.
There's still plenty of wilderness out there in the world, many untouched forests, plains, mountains, islands, and deserts that are essentially uninhabited. It probably won't even require leaving the country in which you live
These places within your own country are under jurisdiction of your country, and you remain bound by its laws. Your only hope is that no government bureaucrat will ever find your cabin in the woods. Because if they do, they will order it destroyed, and you will be arrested for something or the other.
Society doesn't really owe you anything.
Huh? If I buy a Muni bond - which I do sometimes - the society most certainly owes me, and I know exactly what it is. If I pay a local tax and a new FD station is built, I "own" a little piece of it: (tax * num_citizens)/amortization_period. I buy it because I intend to use it. If I leave the country, why shouldn't I be refunded? I'm not going to call fire anymore.
Way back in the day, anyone who refused to contribute was exiled from the village, and back then exile meant death.
You are wearing very strong rose-colored glasses. Old villages had their share of super rich and super poor people. Peasants were famous for their "down to earth" stinginess and rationality. Poorer people used to die from hunger sometimes. Life is far more harsh than you imagine.
if they fail to do so stop fucking re-electing them. Unfortunately this system has been purchased entirely
First of all, I haven't elected anyone, ever. The averaged mass did. It's like a hundred neighbors walk up to your house and tell you how you must spend your money. Wouldn't you want to have a say in that decision?
Secondly, the system indeed had been purchased and exploited long ago. Politicians are elected pretty much forever, and it takes a lot of misdeeds to get kicked out. Elections are openly manipulated by gerrymandering and fraud, with hardly any slap on the wrist to those who was seen carrying stacks of ballots. There is no chain of custody of voting machines and the voting data. But in the end it does not really matter because there are only two halves of one party that have a chance to win - and both candidates have confirmed their obedience to the System before they were nominated. This is exactly the reason why in a modern world referendums (direct democracy, not representative democracy) are practical. It would be also easier to vote from home, during a whole week perhaps, at your convenience, spending as much time as needed comparing and thinking.
you're free to walk to another town, state, or country until you find one with a social contract that you agree with.
You are free to walk to another town or state - and many people do vote with their feet. However this is only a minor relief, as absence of one tax is compensated by other taxes being higher. On average the government gets its pound of flesh, one way or the other. As I already said, you generally cannot move to another country.