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: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:18PM
When the tax system is so large only major corporations can get maximum benefits, it is time to throw out the system and replace it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:28PM
This has NOTHING to do with fascism. I believe this is a captured democracy in action in this case.
This is EXACTLY what the voters have voted for every year for the last several decades. The faux outrage and pontificating is rather pathetic - you are getting what you paid for. (and so are they)
The fact that they are ignorant of that fact and easily fooled has nothing to do with it.
Wake up and deal with the core issue here (your corrupt two-party system) or just stop moaning altogether please - it is getting ridiculous. You cannot and will not change this unless you go to the source.
And you will just continue to sound foolish to the rest of us...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:58PM
Not just a "captured democracy", but a captured democratic facade covering a criminal oligarchy, all built upon the ruins of a shattered constitutional republic. The voters have faced false choices at the polls for generations, not the least of which is the problems stemming from a lack of a "none of the above" option. Granted, as you suggest, such an option may not have made a difference: every time I return to bash my head against the wall of the established political system, I always hear the voice of the masses keening for more and more largess from the plundered treasury.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:03AM
Picture = a bunch of words. [twimg.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:17AM
I can't draw a picture, so I use my words.
There is always a choice. Some of the choices may be difficult, and some may even prove fatal to the decision-maker - but such a situation still does not change the fact that there is always a choice. Sometimes, the best choice is to choose something other than what oligarchs or even society in general present as the only choices.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:10AM
Of course. The statement in the satirical "bumper sticker" is that there is no ELECTORAL CHOICE. :-)
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:17AM
Agreed. It is plain that we USians cannot vote our way out of this mess.
(I've currently chosen to take ever-increasing responsibility for my own life, with the goal of having nothing to do whatsoever with anything government is "selling". Charging across the White House lawn with fixed bayonets any time real soon is not something I see as something likely to produce positive change, whereas an increase in personally-responsible individuals is.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:53AM
We can vote our way out of the mess. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your feet.
What I find sad is how many people stayed with the big 4 banks, Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo, despite their culpability in causing the Great Recession, and even the terrible service they deliver on a personal level. It was only after Bank of America invented yet another fee that my dad was finally provoked enough to change banks. They paid a pathetic interest rate of something like 0.1% on his savings, but he stayed. They "accidentally" charged him a service fee they should not have charged, and we went running in to the nearest branch to inquire about it and get it fixed, but he stayed. They included copies of printed checks in the monthly statement, for free at first, then they started charging $3/month for this service, opting him in without asking. That wasn't quite enough. It also took a dumb and annoying question from yet another new teller (they have a very high rate of turnover) to finally push him over the edge, and switch banks.
He still got punished. The IRS had his old bank info, and nailed him hard for a refused payment. It's their fault their system is so poor at handling updates to bank info, but we get punished for that. I thought bank fees of $30 were outrageous, but the IRS charges a penalty of 2% of the amount. As it happened, that was the year his income was hugely inflated thanks to converting his retirement money to a Roth IRA, so 2% turned out to be way, way more than $30. We appealed, and the IRS denied it.
Why do people put up with Ticketmaster? I'd chose to skip the concert every time if the only way to get a ticket was through them. Why can't people live without cable TV? I think cable companies charge way too much, and I refuse to have their services. We could break the entertainment industry in an instant and make them change their attitudes about piracy, if we had the will. We could also stop such things as speed traps and bogus red light camera tickets created by taking advantage of too short yellow lights, if only people would fight this stuff rather than cowardly trying to avoid trouble. Yes, antelopes should not make trouble for lions. Don't run away, just let the lions kill them. Lions have to eat too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:36AM
You are right, and that general approach is the only non-violent way we have to compel change. The electoral system is a charade, the government a criminal syndicate. So, opt out. Eschew the cable companies, take your house off-grid, sell your ICE vehicle, stop buying crap you don't need, grow as much of your own food as you can. We are now on the cusp of having the means to do all that without consigning ourselves to living at the level of hunter-gatherers. We can now live modern, technological lives without ceding all power to central control. So do. And help those around you to do so, too.
Often we geeks relish our feelings of superiority because we understand and command technologies that most other people don't, or, when we have moments of compassion, we pity them. Often that's because we felt undervalued or bullied as young kids, and it's the natural reaction of the wounded social animal. But that's self-indulgent, and more importantly, counter-productive because it perpetuates the cycle of the oppressive status quo. If we really want the world to change, then we have to use our powers to not enrich ourselves (does the world really need another rich asshole in a ferrari, even if that rich asshole is us?) but to raise up those around us and do things differently.
It takes courage and grit to do that, which are not qualities that geeks are commonly known for, so it's a high bar. But we have to because no one else will. Everyone else is either too co-opted or too beaten down.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:31PM
Your series of anecdotes and admonitions go further to illustrate that we do not live in democratically responsive form of republican government, but as the captive clients of Finance Capital rentiers, with money as the only actual medium for expression of speech.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:17AM
Insightful? What DaFuq mods? For just saying "Herpa de derp, choice" without even a single fricking example? And you KNOW why he didn't provide an example, because short of violent revolution there IS none! You have ALL of the major media outlets controlled by a handful of corps that are in on the game, you have a system where the highest office can NEVER go to anybody but one of the two, and a primary process where even a party outsider has ZERO chance of getting the nomination.
Saying "there is choice" is like making an employee play 3 card monty with a street hustler to get his check and then when the employee can't win saying "well you should have played better". The game IS RIGGED, you can't "play better" or do anything different to affect the outcome of a fricking rigged game!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:53AM
If you have enough people to succeed at a violent revolution, you probably have enough people to just vote.
Assuming, of course, the voting system is still mostly functional. They're working on that via gerrymandering and (thankfully mostly unsuccessful thus far) attacks on the voting system itself.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:05AM
If you have enough people to succeed at a violent revolution, you probably have enough people to just vote.
Actually, violent revolutions require far less than the majority. The latest example is Ukraine; population is about 50 million, but 10,000 well organized protesters were able to force the weak government to resign. That's only 0.02%. Even if you count supporters in other cities and claim 100,000 - it is still only 0.2% ... that's exactly why violent revolts are so popular - they can be done by a small group.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:18PM
A fair point, and I suppose on consideration there are some notable counter examples in history.
I'm not entirely convinced my position is wrong in the general case, but I'll concede that it's not absolute. In any case, certainly a position that warrants more fleshing out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:21AM
Bollocks.
Although severely misguided the Tea party movement's only redeeming feature was that a motivated minority CAN make a difference.
Now imagine if that was a well informed and better motivated movement that actually followed through?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:29PM
Bwa ha ha ha ha...I'll just leave this here [huffingtonpost.com] but just FYI the ones that formed the original "tea party" were ousted waaaaay back in late '08, less than 8 months after forming it in the first place, ever since then? Its just been a mouthpiece for the billionaire Koch bros and big tobacco. If you use THAT as an example? Then thank you for proving my point.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:31AM
Freedomworks was a highly-visible latecomer that jumped in what they hoped was the front of the parade and started madly waving a baton around. While the term "tea party [wikipedia.org]" has been part of the American vernacular since shortly after 1773, the most current well-known political iteration under that term started as a suggestion by a few Internet authors to send in tea bags to federal politicians as a cautionary reminder that a portion of the population was getting angry over the continued financial fraud and related criminal activity ongoing with the aid and/or participation of the elected "representatives". One of the authors, Karl Denninger, has been angrily shutting down parts of his website(s) over the years in frustration over apparent reader inaction, so I am unable to provide you with a working source link [wikipedia.org].
However, I was an eyewitness to the events and timeline in question, and at the beginning, the 2009-era Tea Party was indeed a spontaneous movement brought about by a multitude of independent individuals all working to move towards the same general goals of demanding an end to fraudulent financial schemes, government bailouts of fraudsters, and similarly-themed ideas.
That the name has been coopted and derailed by outsiders does not change the fact that the original crimes were left unaddressed and that the participants are still out there and aware that their last efforts to play nicely within the rules dictated by the system did not accomplish what they see as justice demanded.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:12AM
meh.
This conversation is pointless if you are going to intentionally miss my points.
Can't be bothered talking further and in the end nothing on this board will change anything.
byee
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:32AM
I disagree: there are choices to be made in advance of a violent revolution, and although I recognize that violence in the form of self-defense (on both the individual and group level) is a legitimate choice, I sadly do expect outright war between the agents of the US government and We the People.
In the meantime, the US fedgov is getting a full 75% of its spending money from the income taxes of private individuals. Have you bumped up your W-4 exceptions to a number high enough to have no income taxes withheld (and then decided to never again file a tax return)? Why not? That's a choice, a non-violent one, a principled one, and something that has the potential to starve the beast almost instantaneously.
Have you chosen to reduce your quality of life such that you are officially below the financial level "required" to be a net contributor to fedgov coffers? If so, why not? That's a choice, a non-violent one, a principled one, and something that doesn't expose you to unusual risks of a personal confrontation with IRS collection agents.
Human bodies are remarkable examples of the most advanced pieces of technology in the known universe. Do you really claim to need someone to hold your hand and point out specific examples before you consider re-examining your premises? Well, if you do, I just gave you a couple to consider. (Don't feel too bad, tho - I, too, once needed someone to hold my adult hand.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:24AM
That is exactly right, HairyFeet, the game is rigged. We all know it now. At least, enough of us know it. Those of us who do know it have now the duty to proclaim it far and wide, and to work on ways to overturn the card table. There is no other way forward.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:26PM
Even though I do not support or believe in anything the libertarians do what convinced me was the videos they put up when Ron Paul was running. You had a major news anchor on camera tell the reporter to outright ignore anything from the Paul camp, even though at that time he was ahead in the polls of that state, you had county election officials say, again on camera, that "the votes we counted was not what was reported, they gave the votes we counted for Paul to Romney" and finally you have the RNC convention itself, where they called for a floor vote and somebody managed to get a vid from their cellphone behind the podium where the results of the votes was already on the teleprompter before the votes was even cast!
Only a fool supports a rigged game and pretends it isn't rigged, and I'm not a fool. You have better odds of winning the powerball 3 times on nothing but 1s than you do of changing anything through the current system because the big money already controls the table, they have the MSM, they have the party officials, and they have the judges that decide any disputes. To think you can change all of that influence just by printing some flyers and getting out voters? Yeah and pull this leg it plays jingle bells!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:02PM
Hairyfeet, I directly responded with explicit examples to your complaint about my post not providing any examples of choices. None of my examples dealt with addressing criminality in US government by voting at the polls. The author of the post you responded to does not appear to support change via voting at the polls, either, as he(?) refers to the game being rigged and a desire to find a way to "overturn the card table".
If you're trying to come up with a solution that involves controlling other people, congratulations, your search is over: get yourself elected as a member of lawless US government. If you do not desire to control other people, the only approach left is to try to take control over your own self.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 25 2015, @07:23PM
What examples? Tax fraud, THAT is your big solution? You DO know that nearly all the "money" the country runs on is percentage lending where a bank with $10 can lend $100 based on "future earnings", yes? This is why the gov had to throw trillions at the 2008 crisis as banks were lending closer to $1000 on every $10 because "real estate always goes up". Maybe you should have a little gander at this video [youtube.com], made by a libertarian so perhaps he'll have more weight with you than a socialist like me, and see how much of the government's money is tied up in gambling on the stock market and banks. It ain't coming from you friend, or did you forget Mittens little "47%" gaffe already?
If your theory would hold water the fact that a good chunk of the fortune 50 pay ZERO taxes [huffingtonpost.com] would have caused it to collapse years ago...but it hasn't, why? Because they can simply borrow more freshly printed money [usdebtclock.org] and anybody who refuses to take it can get bombed or invaded [time.com] so no worries. Think this is a new development? We haven't had any real say in this country in nearly a century [ratical.org] so if anything else was gonna work? It would have done so by now.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:09PM
Yes that is the problem, and the proof. But you don't need those specifics. A person could observe that control of the federal government has completely, from Congress to the Whitehouse, changed hands in the last 20 years and nothing substantial has changed on a policy level. If that doesn't convince you that party politics are irrelevant, and that something deeper is going on, then nothing will.
The government of the United States must be overthrown, somehow, some way. There is no avenue through the rigged game that it is. We all know it, even if we don't all have the words to express it. You and I and others like us can and will be crushed for observing it, but it doesn't change the fact that the keepers of this system shall all hang.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:44AM
Jean-Paul Sartre and Soren Kierkegaard never had to live in 21st-century bankster America.
Of course there is always a choice, but since the only effective way to undo the current system is violent revolution, until popular sentiment reaches critical mass the choice is either ride Hobson's horse or walk.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:47AM
A capitalist democracy will always be captured. Once anyone has enough money, they will buy things which allow them to obtain even more money, like lawmakers; there will always be corrupt, bribeable legislators, and all it takes is a few, or even just one (like President Reagan), to change the laws so they can rake in even more, allowing them to capture even more of the government for private interests. Any laws and regulations set up to protect against this just get repealed or changed to be powerless, which is exactly whats happened in the US, more than once even, so the only longterm solution we're left with is to not allow money to concentrate into the hands of individuals by getting rid of this system of exploiting workers for slave wages, where only the owner benefits, and replacing it with a system where people get rewarded for their hard work and given a reason to care about the company for which they work, which allows people to move up the economic ladder by working hard and having good work ethic and also prevents money from concentrating into individual's hands - socialism (eg, cooperatives).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:16PM
There are cases where democracy could be at least more difficult to capture. Basically, if democracy is local enough, it gets to be harder for someone with enough money to pay off enough people. After all, if Bill Gates had to pay off 20 million people to lower his tax bill, it probably wouldn't be worth it. The only way that could make sense is if we used a sort of binary tree to 'vote up' power, with the ability to recall that power locally. That is to say, if each representative represented 10k people (call these the local reps), and every 5-100* of them voted for one representative (national reps). If 10% of the local reps get recalled or when 10% are voted out of office, there is an automatic revote on the national rep that the locals are represented by. The local representatives would be able to talk with just about anyone they represent and wouldn't need insane campaign budgets. Money would matter, but not by much since you could go door to door to talk to everyone. Gerrymandering would still be a problem, but it could be done algorithmically, like requiring square shapes for selecting the people and auto-redistricting when the 10k figure redoubles or on elections. I don't disagree how we have built the system, it will automatically corrupt given enough time. The system I propose has possible ways of corrupting too, but I think with enough people thinking about it, we could at least solve todays forms of corruption.
(Score: 5, Informative) by VortexCortex on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:54AM
This is EXACTLY what the voters have voted for every year for the last several decades. The faux outrage and pontificating is rather pathetic - you are getting what you paid for. (and so are they)
The evidence shows otherwise. Thanks to lobbyists purchasing politics We now live in a plutocracy or oligopoly, not a democratic republic (or "democracy" as many incorrectly deem it). [economyincrisis.org]
This has been the case for quite some time. For example, according to declassified documents the CIA caused a military coup on September 11th, 1973 in Chile at the behest of AT&T to keep the populist government from socializing the communication infrastructure.
Frequently I have watched representatives on CSPAN fervently denounce some legislation in accordance with their claimed party or political stance, and then vote for it instead of against it. Later when their own pet project needs to pass, likely due to promises of benefits from Lobbyists, they will call in their favour and get the other party to do the same. What manner of voting for representatives matters when most representatives refuse to represent the people while claiming otherwise?
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept responsibility for the state of things. It's not my fault, but it is our problem.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:29AM
You are very confused.
It is a captured democracy. It has a functioning democratic process but that process has been thwarted by legal means. You are confusing the system of government with the practical reality.
You are also confusing personal responsibility with that of the country as a whole. In any society you will find opponents to any issue or state of affairs. That is irrelevant.
The fact remains that the US could vote for a different party or candidates and put into power a different set of people who could begin to fix things...in theory. It would not even require a revolution.
But they don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:20AM
This has NOTHING to do with fascism. I believe this is a captured democracy in action in this case.
What in Zeus' name do you think Fascism is! It is a popular dictatorship, coming from the Roman practice of handing over the faeces, an axe with a bundle of sticks tied around its shaft, to an absolute dictator to save the Republics. And after the emergency, he would hand it back. The amazing thing, is that actually happened a couple of times in Roman history. Mussolini, he did not do so well. So yes, all the Fox News Americans, the LePen Frenchies, the Harper Canucks, and Australians more or less in general, support an absolute dictatorship to keep us safe and get stuff done. That is Fascism. Any one who says different is trying to sell you something.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:56AM
You had it right up to the point where you (falsely) attribute corporatist cronyism exclusively to the Right. In practice, fascism only works as well as it does in America when all political parties, or preferably a single party, are instruments of the regime. The American Left is just as corrupt as the Right, hence the term Republicrats. Are you ready for Jebary in 2016?
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:38PM
> Popularly attributed to Benito Mussolini
Pretty sure it was William Shatner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:57PM
Is this a new meme?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:01PM
I'm working on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:56PM
"Please shoot yourself" - Wilson Shatner
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:22PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @10:50PM
8lfbJM gjxuxcrsgizz [gjxuxcrsgizz.com], [url=http://zhsxzafaftyf.com/]zhsxzafaftyf[/url], [link=http://qpyxvcxwrxxq.com/]qpyxvcxwrxxq[/link], http://gvgiieqhkbsv.com/ [gvgiieqhkbsv.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:26PM
Individual companies simply self-assess their tax liability to be zero, that's all.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:47PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:43AM
Nah. They are so massively profitable that there isn't a loophole big enough to hide all of it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:03AM
But...All Apple's profits are in Ireland and The Cayman Islands. Apple has very little profit in the U.S.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NoMaster on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:24AM
Maybe.
I know I'm not. I looked at the numbers the last time someone tried to make it all about their favourite punching bags, and Apple (paying ~10% tax) didn't even make the "Top-200 Tax Avoiders" lists.
IIRC, the 200th-worst tax avoiding companies were paying ~4% tax, and more than half the companies on the various lists were paying no tax.
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:25AM
Apple could easily be on this list, but they know it would be a PR nightmare. So, they decide on how much tax they want to pay, probably based on how much revenue they earn within the US, and then fix the books to make it happen. Between shell holding companies to fix the purchase price of their hardware [so Apple US pays a different price for an iPhone than it costs Foxconn or whomever to produce it] and software and patent royalties [again, to Apple shell corporations outside the US], they can choose exactly how much tax they pay in the US and every other country.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:51PM
When noticing that one is enslaved, the most appropriate response is not to demand that other slaves should appear to be doing equal work, but rather to free one's own self from slavery.
After all, how can one have an "unalienable right to life" if the work of their own body is subject to a claim of ownership aka taxation? Just because it is easy to pay for things when your society is based on taxation doesn't mean it is moral.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:05AM
Do you miss the good old days when government revenue came from tariffs instead of taxes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:51AM
So much. It makes more sense to tax businesses engaging in trade instead of income from ordinary working stiffs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:16AM
*This*! Why do so many people run around calling "foul" and attempting to drag people back into the hell-hole rather than finding solutions to liberate the remaining slaves?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:47AM
Right. I hate it when a thief takes more from me than the next guy. If you're going to hurt me, at least let me enjoy watching you hurt others too. As long as the abuse is equal, it is fine... with most people.
How about stop taking money by force. It's immoral. Evil. Wrong. And as every predator knows, your prey are going to fight back -- the stronger ones will fight back more effectively.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:51AM
Taxation is not theft, dipshit. By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share. Don't like it? Don't want to pay your fair share? Then get the fuck out. Nobody is forcing you to live where roads and underground plumbing exists.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:58AM
Let me tell you how society works: You *pay* for the services that you *use*. Pretending that there are "hidden" costs that you need to be charged an arbitrary amount to subsidize is *not* appropriate. If something has a cost to provide then put a price tag on it and I'll pay for it when I use it - otherwise I won't use it. Charging people for things they don't *want* nor *use* and then extorting money from them because they are "part of society" is very much *theft*.
If it's a direct tax to pay for the specific service/product provided that the recipient wants then there's is no theft - it's an exchange.
Taxing some arbitrary percentage for some collection of "services" that the recipient does not use nor want - that's straight up extortion and theft.
(Score: 1) by gargoyle on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:04AM
So how does that work for defense? Nobody pays anything unless you get invaded, in which case you have to immediately pay to train, arm and supply a standing army while the invasion is ongoing? Then when you beat back that invasion with your completely new army of raw recruits, it's disbanded and you don't pay anything towards the army until the next invasion?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:13PM
Back in the day, that was a lot closer to what happened than you probably think. The U.S. had to equip and train an armed forces for WWI because it didn't really have a large standing armed forces. Before then it was militia and stuff?
And after the Revolutionary War (?) they sold off the navy. Of course, that ended up being a problem a few years later, but...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:11AM
Let me tell you how society works: You *pay* for the services that you *use*.
No, that's how you want it to work. Other people think differently. And other people don't think about it at all, because all in all it seems to work pretty well as a system for the majority of people. Would things be better if we paid for everything? Maybe. Maybe not.
If you don't want to pay taxes, live somewhere that doesn't have taxes.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:48AM
... OR just choose to assert your authority as as a free individual and refuse to pay that which you do not owe, such as "tax" in almost all forms.
Things may be different in conquered and subjugated nations, but in the USA under the Constitution, the federal government's authority is a derivative of a single voter's authority. If a single individual has no authority to rob any other individual, neither does government regardless of the term used to describe the robbery.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:18AM
... OR just choose to assert your authority as as a free individual and refuse to pay that which you do not owe, such as "tax" in almost all forms.
You're free to try that. Just as you're free to try asserting your right to break any laws you don't happen to like.
You may not be successful.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:28PM
Agreed, I am able to choose to try to live as a free, self-owning individual. I may be accosted by criminals, and I will need to choose how to respond to such an assault against my person. I may not be successful in following through on my choices.
That the criminals may be lone bandits, members of a large private criminal gang, or costumed members of a government that is exceeding its lawful authority is irrelevant in terms of principles.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:02AM
> By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share.
No, I didn't agree.
By reading this comment you agree to post all your bank websites login IDs and passwords.
I guess you think life comes with an End User License Agreement. Don't like it? Don't get born. Right?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:42AM
Then leave. If you don't want to be part of society, nobody is forcing you to remain part of it.
inb4 "I shouldn't have to go anywhere, I'm entitled to mooch off everyone else without having to contribute a thing!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:00AM
Point out to me on this map: where is your society that I may leave it?
A society isn't a physical place; it is an abstract concept.
Many people living physically near you have indeed left your valued society.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:49AM
I, for one,
welcomewould not want to be a member of a society of Anonymous Cowards, since, first, they are anonymous, and second, they are cowards. Does not bode well for when our socially just tax schedule needs defending with the pointy end of the spear. Just saying.(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:04PM
>> No, I didn't agree.
> Then leave
Why don't you leave? You're the one siding with thieves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:41AM
By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share. Don't like it? Don't want to pay your fair share? Then get the fuck out.
How would one agree on what share is fair? Do you think that an old, childless couple should pay a local tax that finances schools? Wouldn't it be more fair that only parents pay that tax? The road tax is paid only by drivers; the sales tax is only paid by buyers; the luxury tax is only paid by owners of yachts (unless they are smart enough to avoid paying [huffingtonpost.com].) If the citizen disagrees, how the hell would he get out? No other country is obliged to accept him, and there is no New New World for him to go to. Besides, why do you interpret a large collection of laws as a bundled deal? There are certain things that the society also owes you, like your social security money, and all the public projects that your taxes went into. Aren't you supposed to get the unused portion of your investment into the society back when you emigrate? (This does not happen, of course.)
The GP post is right: you are nothing but a child of a slave, born into life-long slavery as a unit of human cattle. You had no chance to review the terms of the "contract with society." This contract is changing all the time, but still nobody asks *you* to accept or reject this or that particular tax or fee. You are a slave of lawmakers, who are enabled by the silent - and largely ignorant - voters. You cannot pick and choose what social contracts you are willing to accept; you do what your master orders you to do. A herd owner does not discuss anything with his cows. A free man would be able to voluntarily join whatever contracts he likes and to reject whatever other contracts he doesn't like. This would force those contracts to change to become attractive. Today there is no such need, and governments of all levels feel free to burden people with whatever taxes and fees they want, as the taxpayer has no recourse. They can even force you to buy a commercial product, or else IRS comes and kneecaps you... what a racket!
The companies are actually a notch or two above you, because they can emigrate - or simply die a little here and get born anew in a place with better tax laws. They are using these options. You cannot use them - not without relinquishing your US citizenship. The companies have no such problem.
(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.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:46AM
You have laid out the reality superbly. I have read more clear-eyed assessments of the situation here in a couple inches of threads on SN than I have seen anywhere else. Why can't *this* group, *these* geeks, who understand how things really stand, *do* something to effect meaningful change?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:06PM
Wouldn't it be more fair that only parents pay that tax? The road tax is paid only by drivers;
Lots of other things get shipped over roads. Like food? You don't eat store-bought food, do you? Good, then you don't need to pay road tax.
Or should the farmers, store owners, and transportation people pay all of those road taxes?
"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 tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:04PM
Or should the farmers, store owners, and transportation people pay all of those road taxes?
Not only they should - they do. They do so currently through the licensing and taxation imposed on vehicles and the fuel. Then they include these expenses into the cost of products, and when you buy a loaf of bread you pay your small share of road repair fees.
This is not only the current practice - it is also a logical and fair (IMO) practice. A farmer may choose to not sell anything, sit on his property and only sustain himself off of his land. It's his right - and then he doesn't need to pay for roads that he isn't using. A remote worker, a telecommuter, does not need to pay road tax as he is rarely visiting the office. If the store sets up a teleport and receives products via hyperspace then the store doesn't need to pay the road tax either.
At the same time the property tax that the hermit farmer is forced to pay is not fair because it is not a mutually beneficial contract. The hermit does not benefit from libraries, schools, theaters, stadiums, and whatever else that local governments are so eager to spend the tax money on. He would buy police and fire protection, but that would be at most 10% of his current property tax. He hasn't paid for the library? No library card for him. He hasn't paid for the theater or the stadium? Can't buy tickets; or if he can, they'd cost much more. And so on. Every service, every expense, conveniently bundled into several packages, should be individually offered to taxpayers, with clear explanation what exactly it buys you, and what are your options if you choose to not purchase. For example, if you choose to not buy a "public schools" package *and* have children of school age, then you will be required to provide those children with a private school, or to homeschool them (as the law requires children to be educated.) A few services (fire, animal control) protect not a specific individual, but the community, so they would have to be mandatory. The rest - even the police - is optional.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:54AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population. If a hermit is the only counterargument you can come up with I guess we've won this debate.
And as previously mentioned above, a better-educated population benefits everyone (except the rulers).
"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 tftp on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:16AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population
*/me shrugs his own shoulders* This is a typical proof by counterexample [wikibooks.org]. It does not matter how many farmers are hermits, because all those that are will be injured by this taxation. My point is that it's not necessary to paint the population with a wide brush anymore, as modern computers can easily manage individual subscriptions to government services (that are paid for by yearly contributions that we call taxes.) Those services that do not gather enough subscribers should be abolished altogether, as the vox populi is the final arbiter.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:53AM
> When noticing that one is enslaved,
What you call slavery most people call paying for civilization.
Basically you've stated your conclusion as your premise and as such you've completely dismissed the most relevant issue.
(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?"
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:00AM
I thought you were describing the labor market .. ;-)
Taxes suck but they usually only apply when you actually have something to tax. The real problem with taxes is the unequal burden from them and lack of proper negative feedback loop from mismanagement either by incompetence or fraud.
Labor market works in that it eats your finite time for boundless profit making. And most people can't quit, only change who is their master and not be their own master. By eating your time, you are prevented from actually doing something efficient about your situation.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:11AM
While there is an element of truth in your above observation, I note that much of the underlying reason for that situation's existence is that government guns are used to try to trap people in that situation.
Start your own business? You'll need licenses (enforced at gunpoint), need to comply with our demands and conditions (at gunpoint), and give us a cut ala taxes (at gunpoint). If you try to save up excess capital, we'll steal much of it via official counterfeiting ala inflation (and we'll enact our fraud and theft under the protection of government agents' guns).
These barriers and others are not insurmountable, but are indeed formidable enough that most people will not choose to tackle them. Do note, though, that "the market" is not the evil you detect. "The market" is merely voluntary buyers conducting voluntary transactions with voluntary sellers; how can that be faulted for anything?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:57AM
It's not the market itself that is evil. It's the implicit rules that runs it that is insidious. Not all created by laws but rather systematic effects not mitigated by government. When these anti-poaching agreements came around it's just another indication of what's going on.
Regarding savings. Seems it's not the inflation that is the devil in the details but taxes which affect multiplier effects which usually are more powerful than inflation.
Business isn't that hard to start. It's just that you have to make the money to keep them around ;) But when barrier to entry is raised by stuff like EMC directives etc. It's a direct punishment for startup actors. While large corporation can just hire professionals on full time and just play with the regulation. This last systematic effect, that some can hire professionals to shield themselves from regulations while others has to dwell in the mud also narrows the escape path.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:11AM
I again note that the problems you rightly observe appear to originate in government, rather than as unaddressed problems for government to solve.
Individuals are free to negotiate their own contracts. As a small-fry IT-centric individual working in the corporate world when IP-assignment clauses were all the rage, I personally struck out every clause that claimed that my employer would own any idea/software/product I happened to come up with and replaced it with plain English clause that said much the same but only if said idea/software/product was worked on during paid business hours or using employer equipment. As it happens, I never was turned down employment due to such re-negotiations. I acknowledge some people will be, most likely. Well, that's the hazard of seeking employment with someone else: your only real recourse is to say "no" and go elsewhere. Once you start trying to use "law" to force others to bend to your will, you'll find you're standing in the evil gun-pointing shoes of government.
If a business makes a scummy-sounding employment agreement with competitors, that's probably a good sign that a principled individual really shouldn't be working for such businesses anyway.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:27AM
The problem is proving that you came up with the idea/software/product outside employee hours and without employer equipment. And the lengths they will go is proportional to the estimated profit.
You will not find out about no-poaching agreements as a normal person.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:42AM
True, a fight in civil court can be more trouble than it's worth. However, there still (in theory) needs to be a preponderance of evidence to support a claim that employer's resources were used. (The reverse isn't directly true, as you cannot "prove a negative".)
I did find out about no-poaching agreements between Google, Yahoo, et al, and I'm a "normal person". ;) Your point is noted, though, and I will state that I am not a fan of corporations in their current form, as they are effectively the private half of the exploitative mercantilist form of government (a more accurate description of the US fedgov than the more common "capitalist").
My primary point remains, however, in that there are choices available to any given individual. They may not all be the choices the individual wants, but they are available and the number of choices is largely limited only by human creativity.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:09AM
Perhaps you should specify that any lawsuit has to be payed by the employer? such that they can't bet against your private economy.
Choices are also limited by human bargaining leverage. If your skills is in demand you can pretty much say take it or leave it. Otherwise you may have to suck up the conditions that the employer offers. Guess why Facebook, Google and others are so obsessed with coding as a subject in school.. *whistle*
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:57PM
Choices made as an individual that require the participation of another individual can only justly proceed if the other individual also consents to the conditions of my choice, that is true. Voluntary participation still appears to me to be vastly superior model than one that relies upon the use of violence to coerce cooperation.
Such a blanket proclaimation would likely be yet another obstacle to the creation of small businesses. I wish I had all the answers, but I don't. It does seem that "law" is not meant to be the hammer for every problem nail, though, as the Founders of the United States repeatedly stated that their new government was fit only for a "religious and moral" people. Regardless of your views of the morality of the Creator YHWH, it should be obvious to everyone that law cannot successfully force people to be moral.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:07AM
I know that trying to psychoanalyze someone over the internet is fraught with peril, but I can't help but notice that you seem to see government as nothing more than a big, scary bunch of bullies. I think you may have emotional issues that are best dealt with in the care of a trained professional. Just sayin'.
Another blind side I see in you is an almost child-like trust in "the free market". While I also prefer a free market to a centralized command economy, I think that your adoration of the free market ignores the darker side of said market, such as manipulation by monopolies. Someone recently told me that even John Locke understood the importance of market regulation to stave off market manipulation by monopolies. Again, just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:37AM
He can't help it, conservatives are hard-wired to be scared [psychologytoday.com] of everything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:52PM
It's simple. Some entities has more resources to game the system. In this case the tax system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:59PM
They provide the government with a list of names and social security numbers to go after.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hash14 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:31AM
Never mind that these companies would skip town in a heartbeat and take all their jobs with them if the situation were economically favourable for them (and they do, given how much labour is outsourced to poor countries like Bangladesh and China where the costs are much cheaper). Never mind that in spite of the jobs they bring, even a 60+ hour week at minimum wage still isn't enough to get by because of all the other costs of living (rent, healthcare, education, miscellaneous debt).
Here's a quick heads-up the next time someone suggests against social policies that would drive these jobs away - they're probably not providing jobs that you want in the first place.
Keep acting like you're proud of your country America - the best democracy money can buy.