You're missing the point. You are assuming that these things cannot or would not be built without money extraction at the point of a gun (taxes). This is not true. Bottom line, almos tall of it could be privatized. Most people using this argument for taxes are basically begging the question.
And risk being gouged by private companies? I think they learned that lesson the hard way with the railroads.
So private companies "gouge" but the government doesn't? I think you have it exactly backwards. What private companies are "gouging" you right now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I think they learned that lesson the hard way with the railroads.
Really? What lesson did they learn from the railroads? Did they learn that 90% of them weren't actually private but crony capitalist weasels that syphoned off money and privileges and land from the government? That most most of them were well connected to politicians who happily handed over tax-funded rents to these "private" companies? There's only one that I know that was nearly as truly private (and profitable and successful) as can be and that was James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway.
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
Sure they pay taxes and if increased taxes lead to higher prices then they'll run the risk of their products not being purchased.
So private companies "gouge" but the government doesn't? I think you have it exactly backwards. What private companies are "gouging" you right now?
Really? What lesson did they learn from the railroads? Did they learn that 90% of them weren't actually private but crony capitalist weasels that syphoned off money and privileges and land from the government? That most most of them were well connected to politicians who happily handed over tax-funded rents to these "private" companies? There's only one that I know that was nearly as truly private (and profitable and successful) as can be and that was James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway.
No. They don't. The cost gets passed onto customers one way or another.
Of course they do. Price points are very delicate, Do you think the iPad mini would've sold as well at $349 then at $329? A little $20 difference would've made a big difference in their sales numbers.
Of course they do. Price points are very delicate, Do you think the iPad mini would've sold as well at $349 then at $329? A little $20 difference would've made a big difference in their sales numbers.
You're confusing price and cost. The cost of those taxes are borne by the customers of the companies. This is so obvious a first grader could see it.
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
Any gouging of the government is gouging of taxpayers. The government isn't a business and does not produce anything. I'm not a fan of taxes but at the end of the day they are necessary even if somewhat dysfunctional to operate.
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
Make it illegal. Problem solved. Now pay up.
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim themself as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries? Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim the,sf as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries. Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
Yes, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
I'd like to see no State and no taxes.
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
I assume that you presume a) that's the only way to get those things, and b) that the State does theme best.
...
Yeah. I'll bet the correlation isn't what you think though.
Since you seem to be the expert, could you enlighten us wandering in the dark? Or may it be that the correlation isn't what you think? (don't really know since you didn't say)
If you read the actual report, they say "these inter-country differences can be attributed to the same few variables measuring material, social and institutional supports for a good life". Two of those are socialist ideas, only one a capitalist one. You on the other hand seem to advocate that there should be minimal institutional support for a good life and by proxy social as well?
As to the state does best theme: Which country tops the world education system? What kind of schools does it have almost exclusively? Which countries have the best bang for buck in their healthcare? How do they operate?
Government isn't the best at offering all services, but neither is a corporation and a corporation is not even necessarily more efficient for the citizen. Both are needed to be used smartly but the funding almost always comes from the citizens.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronstark
Brilliant. This makes it possible for Apple to do what it does.
Nothing illegal either.
Applause.
Oh yes genius. We should all applaud not paying taxes. Personally I feel good investing in my country.
The only reason it's not illegal is because the rich have bought their way into our government to make it legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Personally I feel good investing in my country.
No one would stop you from "investing in your country." You just want to force everyone else to "invest" as well.
And risk being gouged by private companies? I think they learned that lesson the hard way with the railroads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And risk being gouged by private companies?
So private companies "gouge" but the government doesn't? I think you have it exactly backwards. What private companies are "gouging" you right now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I think they learned that lesson the hard way with the railroads.
Really? What lesson did they learn from the railroads? Did they learn that 90% of them weren't actually private but crony capitalist weasels that syphoned off money and privileges and land from the government? That most most of them were well connected to politicians who happily handed over tax-funded rents to these "private" companies? There's only one that I know that was nearly as truly private (and profitable and successful) as can be and that was James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway.
Sure they pay taxes and if increased taxes lead to higher prices then they'll run the risk of their products not being purchased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Sure they pay taxes and if increased taxes lead to higher prices then they'll run the risk of their products not being purchased.
No. They don't. The cost gets passed onto customers one way or another.
Halliburton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Halliburton.
You're serious using a corporate crony, government contractor as an argument for government? Surely you can do better than that!
Of course they do. Price points are very delicate, Do you think the iPad mini would've sold as well at $349 then at $329? A little $20 difference would've made a big difference in their sales numbers.
Is it not gouging the government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Of course they do. Price points are very delicate, Do you think the iPad mini would've sold as well at $349 then at $329? A little $20 difference would've made a big difference in their sales numbers.
You're confusing price and cost. The cost of those taxes are borne by the customers of the companies. This is so obvious a first grader could see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Is it not gouging the government?
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
So how does it affect the consumer if it's not reflected in the price?
Any gouging of the government is gouging of taxpayers. The government isn't a business and does not produce anything. I'm not a fan of taxes but at the end of the day they are necessary even if somewhat dysfunctional to operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Any gouging of the government is gouging of taxpayers.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The government isn't a business and does not produce anything.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm not a fan of taxes but at the end of the day they are necessary even if somewhat dysfunctional to operate.
Unproven claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So how does it affect the consumer if it's not reflected in the price?
Service. Quality. Features. Etc.
The customers pay those taxes whether you see, think it, want to admit it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
Make it illegal. Problem solved. Now pay up.
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim themself as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries? Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Make it illegal. Problem solved. Now pay up.
Make what illegal?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim the,sf as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries. Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
Yes, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
I'd like to see no State and no taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Make what illegal?!
Yes, it does.
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
I'd like to see no State and no taxes.
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I assume that you presume a) that's the only way to get those things, and b) that the State does theme best.
...
Yeah. I'll bet the correlation isn't what you think though.
Since you seem to be the expert, could you enlighten us wandering in the dark? Or may it be that the correlation isn't what you think? (don't really know since you didn't say)
If you look at Rich's link's original source: (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/happiness-world-bhutan-meeting-denmark.html?track=icymi) it would seem to correlate with wealth, but that's a very simplistic answer. A telling question: why are the less wealthy nordic nations above the more wealthy U.S. of A?
If you read the actual report, they say "these inter-country differences can be attributed to the same few variables measuring material, social and institutional supports for a good life". Two of those are socialist ideas, only one a capitalist one. You on the other hand seem to advocate that there should be minimal institutional support for a good life and by proxy social as well?
As to the state does best theme: Which country tops the world education system? What kind of schools does it have almost exclusively? Which countries have the best bang for buck in their healthcare? How do they operate?
Government isn't the best at offering all services, but neither is a corporation and a corporation is not even necessarily more efficient for the citizen. Both are needed to be used smartly but the funding almost always comes from the citizens.
Please watch this TED talk. It kind of proves a point if you are willing to look for it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
P.S. GDP per Capita: Denmark 37kUSD, USA 49kUSD.