NationStates Jolt Archive

Tax day is coming up for Americans on April 15th. Question that I have is if a person does everything in their power legal or not to avoid paying taxes is it immoral? Examples would be to make up deductions that really are not accurate. Paying cash for a car and reporting the sales as less than what you really paid for it. The other is to avoid sales taxes by actually shopping in a state/province that has a much lower sales tax. There are many different variations of the tax dodge and I could go on and on. Do you look at Federal tax dodging different than state/provincial or local tax dodging?

How say you.... Discuss.

No, just like not obeying an unjust law is not immoral.

Not paying taxes while reaping the benefits of living in a society is immoral. It's asking everyone else to make sure that your roads are well maintained, your laws are being kept and your children are being educated (among other things).

No. Of course not. It's even legal.

Of course you are talking about tax evasion I presume. That's a grey area.

Possibly it is moral, depending upon how you view how the .gov is behaving. It could well be that tax evasion could be construed as a form of civil disobedience, depending on the circumstances.

Unless the tax is necessarily unjust itself, then I'd consider it immoral not to pay the taxes you owe.

In b4 someone tries to tell me that taxation is theft or some such.

as long as its not illegal, its not immoral. the tax code is set up to be "fair" to everyone. making the best deal with that system is an OK thing to do.

lying or cheating on your taxes IS immoral. it cant be otherwise. if you want to protest taxes in a moral manner you have to be upfront about refusing to pay and take the legally mandated punishment for it as soon as they get around to handing you out one.

Breaking tax laws to evade paying your share is theft, and immoral, yes--though if you did it because your money was paying for something truly awful (say, waging a war of aggression) that would probably legitimate it.

Well I got about a hundred buck return on it, so, im okay with it, lol...

Since you choose to live in a location that taxes it's citizens, you are responsible for the payment of those taxes. You are making use of the services provided thru those taxes, be it roads, emergency services, teacher salaries, or whatever your elected officials decide to spend it on.
You are therefore morally obligated to remit those taxes.
If you choose not to pay those taxes, then you should move to a location that doesn't provide any services or charge any taxes.

I don't know where morality comes in but taxing people with more money than they need is one of the pleasures of life.

Breaking tax laws to evade paying your share is theft, and immoral, yes--though if you did it because your money was paying for something truly awful (say, waging a war of aggression) that would probably legitimate it.

Theft? Since when did preventing theft become theft?

My honest view is that so long as it is legal, I have no problems with people avoiding taxes, since the government has allowed for it.

It's actually really easy to tell (conceptually, anyways): we get services from the government. Those services have some market value, or an equivalent.

The value of those services, the ones your household actually receives, is something you have some obligation to pay. You don't have to enjoy it though, especially since you don't really get asked.

Everything above those services however you don't have to pay. There is no reason whatsoever for why you should. It's not "your share", it's not "your duty to society", it's nothing. It's you being made to support others by force, and you have no obligation to comply. And it doesn't matter whether the means you use to get around it happen to be legal or not. Legality and morality have nothing to do with each other.

With spending like the government is currently performing the only moral position is to avoid paying them. I would render any and all aid to someone avoiding taxes.

I read "Texas" the first time.

>.>

I read "Texas" the first time.

>.>

Avoiding Texas is both moral and legal. And advisable. I would render any aid possible to help any man, women, or child avoid Texas. *nod*

I read "Texas" the first time.

>.>

Well duh anyone who hasn't come to Texas at least once in their life is a immoral person. Just no way to be moral with out the pilgrimage to Texas.

Tax day is coming up for Americans on April 15th. Question that I have is if a person does everything in their power legal or not to avoid paying taxes is it immoral?
Yes, it is. Both illegal and exploiting legal loopholes for purposes differing from their intent.


Examples would be to make up deductions that really are not accurate. Paying cash for a car and reporting the sales as less than what you really paid for it.
I always do that. Just because it's immoral doesn't mean I won't do it.


The other is to avoid sales taxes by actually shopping in a state/province that has a much lower sales tax.
Only pays off if you live right by the state border.


Do you look at Federal tax dodging different than state/provincial or local tax dodging?
Yes. Dodging the federal tax is pretty much a "don't get caught" deal, for they'll waste the money on some useless or harmful campaign anyway, while by dodging local taxes you're basically stealing from yourself and your neighbors.



Not paying taxes while reaping the benefits of living in a society is immoral. It's asking everyone else to make sure that your roads are well maintained, your laws are being kept and your children are being educated (among other things).
What if I already pay an order of magnitude more than average, despite using much less than average?

Absolutely not. In no way is it immoral to avoid taxes, even failing to pay them intentionally. Taxation is institutionalized robbery on a massive scale. Not only that, but look what it is used for. Us Americans can take moral safety in paying for occupation forces world wide, massive bailouts, and thousands upon thousands of failed, immoral government programs.

If anything, paying taxes is immoral.

I don't know where morality comes in but taxing people with more money than they need is one of the pleasures of life.

Everything above those services however you don't have to pay. There is no reason whatsoever for why you should. It's not "your share", it's not "your duty to society", it's nothing. It's you being made to support others by force, and you have no obligation to comply. And it doesn't matter whether the means you use to get around it happen to be legal or not. Legality and morality have nothing to do with each other.

Absolutely not. In no way is it immoral to avoid taxes, even failing to pay them intentionally. Taxation is institutionalized robbery on a massive scale. Not only that, but look what it is used for. Us Americans can take moral safety in paying for occupation forces world wide, massive bailouts, and thousands upon thousands of failed, immoral government programs.

If anything, paying taxes is immoral.

And listening to the bleatings is almost as pleasurable. Nothing like taking your money to do what we want. :p

I read "Texas" the first time.

>.>
i avoid texas so much that i avoid going to eastern new mexico.

I believe that income taxes are, or should be, unConstitutional. Therefore I will do my level best to avoid paying them.

The people ranting about taxes being some sort of "theft" are hilarious. By living in the society you are in, you give consent to abide by the laws and customs of that place. If you live in and benefit from the society you are in, then you need to suffer the consequences of living there, as well. Think of taxes as rent for living in a plush Western society.

If paying taxes isn't to your liking, then I suggest you create your own country where no-one has to pay taxes (as an unintentional bonus, maybe then you'll realise why we need taxes - or everything goes to absolute shit).

I don't know where morality comes in but taxing people with more money than they need is one of the pleasures of life.

And their pleasure comes with putting their money in a Swiss bank account.
Great for the Swiss government and economy, but deprives the US of billions in investment income every year.

The people ranting about taxes being some sort of "theft" are hilarious. By living in the society you are in, you give consent to abide by the laws and customs of that place. If you live in and benefit from the society you are in, then you need to suffer the consequences of living there, as well. Think of taxes as rent for living in a plush Western society.

If paying taxes isn't to your liking, then I suggest you create your own country where no-one has to pay taxes (as an unintentional bonus, maybe then you'll realise why we need taxes - or everything goes to absolute shit).

I would never claim that we don't need taxes, I just maintain that income taxes are wrong. I would prefer a uniform sales tax.

Well, that's fair enough. I don't agree that they're wrong, though, only stupid.

If paying taxes isn't to your liking, then I suggest you create your own country where no-one has to pay taxes (as an unintentional bonus, maybe then you'll realise why we need taxes - or everything goes to absolute shit).

I hereby proclaim the Republic of My House, and I shall stop paying any and all taxes to the United States of America. When the police come to arrest me, I will tell them exactly what you suggested.

Secession just isn't possible nowadays without some sort of force. The state will actively use its tax money to keep the people from leaving.

Theft? Since when did preventing theft become theft?

Since libertarians decided making collective decisions about property ownership constitutes "theft."

Also yes the problem with my suggestion is that it can't be done today. But failing that, you could just move to the country with the lowest taxes on Earth... which is apparently Korea at ~18%. That is actually higher than I thought. :( Oh well!

Edit: Make that Switzerland, with 0-13%. Or Uruguay, with -25%, but let's not start on that.

I hereby proclaim the Republic of My House, and I shall stop paying any and all taxes to the United States of America. When the police come to arrest me, I will tell them exactly what you suggested.

Secession just isn't possible nowadays without some sort of force. The state will actively use its tax money to keep the people from leaving.
im sure youll enjoy your time in federal prison for tax evasion.

I seem to recall that the rallying cry of the Revolutionaries was not "No Taxation!" - it was "No Taxation without Representation!". This leads me to the following points:

1. Do you use the services (roads, educational facilities, defense forces etc.) that your government pays for? If so, then you should pay your share toward those.

2. If you object to your share, then you certainly have the right to bring it up with your elected representatives - that's what they're there for. I would suggest, however, that you first find a *lot* of people in the same electoral division who are of the same persuasion - many voices will be heard much louder than one, after all.

3. Do I approve of the spending that the US Federal Government is doing? Hell no! Between earmarking, forign adventurism, generic corruption and inefficiency, the government of the United States can only be considered dysfunctional.

Does this recuse US citizens from their duty to obey the laws enacted by their elected representatives? No - or a least, if they wish to disobey the laws, then they should be willing to pay the price (rather than weaseling around the letter of those laws). There is no faster way to turn society into a circus than by making the law a joke.

4. I'm happy that I'm living in Australia (well, I'm on student exchange to upstate NY atm, but......). For all the bitching we do about our government, it accomplishes far more (by way of services delivered) than the US Government, with only marginally more taxes. And is therefore more efficient. I suppose that it comes of having genuinely influential third/fourth parties - this restricts the concentration of power, unlike the US system.

Also yes the problem with my suggestion is that it can't be done today. But failing that, you could just move to the country with the lowest taxes on Earth... which is apparently Korea at ~18%. That is actually higher than I thought. :( Oh well!

is that including Korea's VAT or not ?
VAT is Korea's main source of income.

Edit: Make that Switzerland, with 0-13%. Or Uruguay, with -25%, but let's not start on that.

Switzerland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Though this is largely because everyone hides the income they don't want taxed there.

Avoiding them is not immoral. Not paying them is kind of. Assuming you can pay them.

And listening to the bleatings is almost as pleasurable. Nothing like taking your money to do what we want. :p
All I ask is that you have the manners to stop making tax evasion illegal. Just make it a game: if you can find it, you can tax it. If you can't, you're not getting a cent. I back myself and private industry to outdo any government on the planet.

But, no, instead you threaten me with jail and violence. It's just not very sporting.

All I ask is that you have the manners to stop making tax evasion illegal. Just make it a game: if you can find it, you can tax it. If you can't, you're not getting a cent. I back myself and private industry to outdo any government on the planet.

But, no, instead you threaten me with jail and violence. It's just not very sporting.

Jail and violence is part of the game. :p

Jail and violence is part of the game. :p
And in that joke lies the profound truth of everything that is wrong with the world.

Dodging taxes isn't immoral, in fact, it's your patriotic duty to stick it to the man by not forking over your gains, both ill- and well-gotten alike. Who's with me?

It's actually really easy to tell (conceptually, anyways): we get services from the government. Those services have some market value, or an equivalent.

The value of those services, the ones your household actually receives, is something you have some obligation to pay. You don't have to enjoy it though, especially since you don't really get asked.

Everything above those services however you don't have to pay. There is no reason whatsoever for why you should. It's not "your share", it's not "your duty to society", it's nothing. It's you being made to support others by force, and you have no obligation to comply. And it doesn't matter whether the means you use to get around it happen to be legal or not. Legality and morality have nothing to do with each other.

You contradict yourself. No one owes anything to the society but you do owe money for the services you enjoy but didn't voluntarily contract.

Also property rights in a libertarian minarchist state have nothing to do with morality. If one violates these noncontractual rights then men with guns will coerce you into complying with them whether from the state, a protection insurance agency, or "militia".



I would never claim that we don't need taxes, I just maintain that income taxes are wrong. I would prefer a uniform sales tax.

What makes a sales tax right?

Dodging taxes isn't immoral, in fact, it's your patriotic duty to stick it to the man by not forking over your well-gotten gains. Who's with me?

Pretty easy to avoid most of your taxes if your not a salaried worker.
Just use the Swiss or whoever else. The lower salaried workers are the ones who always get screwed by income tax.

And in that joke lies the profound truth of everything that is wrong with the world.

Cuz libertarians are pacifists who don't enforce their morality with violence and men with guns?

What makes a sales tax right?

Because you don't have to buy. Most states exempt groceries and some have 1 tax free weekend for clothes a year.

Pretty easy to avoid most of your taxes if your not a salaried worker.
Just use the Swiss or whoever else. The lower salaried workers are the ones who always get screwed by income tax.

That's easy to solve. Put a tarriff on Swiss goods until all the money you estimate they allow tax payers to evade. Use a grossly obscene estimate. Kick them out of the European free trade area unless they have their banks comply.

Because you don't have to buy. Most states exempt groceries and some have 1 tax free weekend for clothes a year.

A uniform sales tax would tax everything, and if you don't but then how will you consume? You could make all the things you need and supplement with bartering but that's really inefficient.

That's easy to solve. Put a tarriff on Swiss goods until all the money you estimate they allow tax payers to evade. Use a grossly obscene estimate. Kick them out of the European free trade area unless they have their banks comply.
But that would destroy the Swiss economy. Swizterland is banking. If you made it so they couldn't do that then you would only really huirt legit businesses because the tax dodgers would just seek another place to dup their cash. They may even make one up.

Legalize everything and there will be no more crime.

But that would destroy the Swiss economy. Swizterland is banking. If you made it so they couldn't do that then you would only really huirt legit businesses because the tax dodgers would just seek another place to dup their cash. They may even make one up.

Legalize everything and there will be no more crime.

Other countries have moral obligations to a country whose economy is based helping their citizens dodge their obligations?

If eating babies is outlawed then only outlaws will eat babies.

That's easy to solve. Put a tarriff on Swiss goods until all the money you estimate they allow tax payers to evade. Use a grossly obscene estimate. Kick them out of the European free trade area unless they have their banks comply.

Then they sue in the WTO and win. Also Switzerland is not in the EU.
they are in the European Free Trade Association, and I really doubt lack of trade with Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein would phase them.

All I ask is that you have the manners to stop making tax evasion illegal. Just make it a game: if you can find it, you can tax it. If you can't, you're not getting a cent. I back myself and private industry to outdo any government on the planet.

But, no, instead you threaten me with jail and violence. It's just not very sporting.

In a sense you understand the point of my provocative posts. The message that comes across, intentionally or otherwise, in your opinions, and the opinions of several others also, is that the government is evil because it does not follow what are to you, and those others, incontravertible precepts.

That is not what government, and its most fundamental aspect - taxation, is about. Government is about power. Democracy is a system that has come about to resolve competing power interests in as peaceful a manner as possible.

If you don't have the numbers... well, too bad. Don't complain about what the government ought to do.

The political cycle will move on and one day you will have a regime that suits your desires more closely. I hope that day is a long time coming.

A uniform sales tax would tax everything, and if you don't but then how will you consume? You could make all the things you need and supplement with bartering but that's really inefficient.

Don't do a uniformed sales tax. Make all your sales tax on goods you want, not good you need.

Then they sue in the WTO and win.

That would take several years and who says they would win? If the EU and the

Also Switzerland is not in the EU.
they are in the European Free Trade Association, and I really doubt lack of trade with Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein would phase them.

EFTA is basically an adjunct to the EU given the EAA. Its free trade with the EU and EFTA, and yes that would have a large effect given how much of their trade relies on the EAA area.

Don't do a uniformed sales tax. Make all your sales tax on goods you want, not good you need.

Who determines good you want versus goods you need? Do the fatasses of the US need all the food they eat? Why are you subsidizing people with larger than average preferences for food in either quantity or quality(using expensive foods as a way to measure quality)? Now you opened the doors for all sorts of special interest groups to lessen/eliminate their good/service tax.

Urrr..... Not the EAA, its the EEA.

That would take several years and who says they would win? If the EU and the
something about cutting out the 3rd largest bank in the world, says they will win. The WTO isn't after all just a we are the bigger economy we organization after all. though that being said cutting off the worlds 3rd largest bank in the current crisis will most certainly make the


EFTA is basically an adjunct to the EU given the EAA. Its free trade with the EU and EFTA, and yes that would have a large effect given how much of their trade relies on the EAA area.

Switzerland is a unique position in the EFTA everything is done by a bilateral with the EU in regards to the Swiss. Not to mention the EU and the US have threatened similar things in the past, the Swiss have laughed at them then backed down.

Who determines good you want versus goods you need? Do the fatasses of the US need all the food they eat? Why are you subsidizing people with larger than average preferences for food in either quantity or quality(using expensive foods as a way to measure quality)? Now you opened the doors for all sorts of special interest groups to lessen/eliminate their good/service tax.

Maybe its just a Texas thing, but my state has not had those sorts of issues at all. Food and clothes one weekend a year is tax exempt that it. No state income tax either.

That's easy to solve. Put a tarriff on Swiss goods until all the money you estimate they allow tax payers to evade. Use a grossly obscene estimate. Kick them out of the European free trade area unless they have their banks comply.
On... watches and knives?
Though forget the knives, 99%+ of Swiss knives are made in China. And the majority of Swiss watches have their movement made in Japan, almost all even by the same company (basically, they buy one of the standard movements and add the decorations). Lower-end may be made in Japan entirely and just packaged in Switzerland.

Somehow I doubt that's what really keeps Switzerland ticking.

In a sense you understand the point of my provocative posts. The message that comes across, intentionally or otherwise, in your opinions, and the opinions of several others also, is that the government is evil because it does not follow what are to you, and those others, incontravertible precepts.

That is not what government, and its most fundamental aspect - taxation, is about. Government is about power. Democracy is a system that has come about to resolve competing power interests in as peaceful a manner as possible.

uh huh, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a push to make things better, or more moral, in our own opinions.

If you don't have the numbers... well, too bad. Don't complain about what the government ought to do.

you're right, any minority should just stop complaining since they don't have the numbers :rolleyes:

The political cycle will move on and one day you will have a regime that suits your desires more closely. I hope that day is a long time coming.

Unlikely with people like you around.

On... watches and knives?
Though forget the knives, 99%+ of Swiss knives are made in China. And the majority of Swiss watches have their movement made in Japan, almost all even by the same company (basically, they buy one of the standard movements and add the decorations). Lower-end may be made in Japan entirely and just packaged in Switzerland.

Somehow I doubt that's what really keeps Switzerland ticking.

Never mind the fact that when the Swiss counter by ceasing to loan money to Europe's private industry the EU economy falls apart in a way that makes the current crisis look like good dream.

something about cutting out the 3rd largest bank in the world, says they will win. The WTO isn't after all just a we are the bigger economy we organization after all. though that being said cutting off the worlds 3rd largest bank in the current crisis will most certainly make the

The WTO is a voluntary organization with bargaining power determined by how large a market a nation or bloc possesses. All the nations that would gain from eliminating the tax evasion that some nations benefit by facilitating tax are collectively larger than the combined market share of the facilitating markets.

Switzerland is a unique position in the EFTA everything is done by a bilateral with the EU in regards to the Swiss. Not to mention the EU and the US have threatened similar things in the past, the Swiss have laughed at them then backed down.

The Swiss still basically enact all the same laws as the EEA and would be kicked out of EFTA if they did not. Also, that just means the EU and the US need to grow a pair and finally stamp down on tax evasion. Either that or pay hackers to get the names of the account holders so that they can be properly taxed.

On... watches and knives?
Though forget the knives, 99%+ of Swiss knives are made in China. And the majority of Swiss watches have their movement made in Japan, almost all even by the same company (basically, they buy one of the standard movements and add the decorations). Lower-end may be made in Japan entirely and just packaged in Switzerland.

Somehow I doubt that's what really keeps Switzerland ticking.

How about all the agricultural products, chemicals, machinery, ect that they export?

Never mind the fact that when the Swiss counter by ceasing to loan money to Europe's private industry the EU economy falls apart in a way that makes the current crisis look like good dream.

Actually according to Wikipedia Switzerland has already begun to tax those citizens who have accounts in their banks

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland)

Swiss and EU finance ministers agreed in June 2003 that Swiss banks would levy a withholding tax on EU citizens' savings income. The tax would increase gradually to 35% by 2011, with 75% of the funds being transferred to the EU. Recent estimates value EU capital inflows to Switzerland to $8.3 billion.

The WTO is a voluntary organization with bargaining power determined by how large a market a nation or bloc possesses. All the nations that would gain from eliminating the tax evasion that some nations benefit by facilitating tax are collectively larger than the combined market share of the facilitating markets.



The Swiss still basically enact all the same laws as the EEA and would be kicked out of EFTA if they did not. Also, that just means the EU and the US need to grow a pair and finally stamp down on tax evasion. Either that or pay hackers to get the names of the account holders so that they can be properly taxed.

The WTO is also based on the rule of law, most noticeably MFN status. WTO highly frowns on tariffs targeted at one country. As for EFTA membership I think the Swiss have made it clear they don't care.

For the Europe SBS is the largest bank in Europe and 3rd largest in the world. If you put some get our taxes back Tariff The Swiss will retaliate by not loaning European business the money it needs to function. The result would be businesses unable to pay wages or to pay for raw materials. Just a guess but I think the European economy would shrink by a trillion dollars overnight.

The Swiss I would say have Europe by the balls and to a lesser extent the US.

How about all the agricultural products, chemicals, machinery, ect that they export?
According to the web info, 72% (http://www.economy-point.org/s/swiss-economy.html) of the Swiss are employed in the tertiary sector.

72%. And that's before we take into account that agriculture barely breaks even, industry has low to moderate profits, and the tertiary sector is where the big money is made.

The tertiary sector is also rapidly growing, while secondary and primary are shrinking.

Actually according to Wikipedia Switzerland has already begun to tax those citizens who have accounts in their banks

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland)

A tax on savings income ?
You mean a tax on the interest rates ?
the real effect for someone with their money in a Swiss bank account would get a smaller interest rate.
Still has no effect on people hiding their money in Switzerland. No one puts their money there for the interest rates they put it there to avoid income tax.
You will have my attention when they Tax the deposits. Notice how the Swiss get to take 25% of the tax rate.

No, just like not obeying an unjust law is not immoral.

^this

The WTO is also based on the rule of law, most noticeably MFN status. WTO highly frowns on tariffs targeted at one country.

And what would it do? At most it can allow Switzerland to retaliate.

As for EFTA membership I think the Swiss have made it clear they don't care.

For the Europe SBS is the largest bank in Europe and 3rd largest in the world. If you put some get our taxes back Tariff The Swiss will retaliate by not loaning European business the money it needs to function. The result would be businesses unable to pay wages or to pay for raw materials. Just a guess but I think the European economy would shrink by a trillion dollars overnight.

The Swiss I would say have Europe by the balls and to a lesser extent the US.

Untrue. They have already been changing their laws because of EU pressure. The EU has the Swiss by the balls and is deciding how much they wish to squeeze them. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_43/b3855183_mz035.htm)

According to the web info, 72% (http://www.economy-point.org/s/swiss-economy.html) of the Swiss are employed in the tertiary sector.

72%. And that's before we take into account that agriculture barely breaks even, industry has low to moderate profits, and the tertiary sector is where the big money is made.

That and their manufacture is things like expensive watches, chocolates, and such. The things people will buy regardless if you tax them to be more expensive. the effect would simply be a sales tax for Eu citizens.

A tax on savings income ?
You mean a tax on the interest rates ?
the real effect for someone with their money in a Swiss bank account would get a smaller interest rate.
Still has no effect on people hiding their money in Switzerland. No one puts their money there for the interest rates they put it there to avoid income tax.
You will have my attention when they Tax the deposits. Notice how the Swiss get to take 25% of the tax rate.

You don't think that EU will get stricter? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please. The Swiss hope to appease the EU with a sacrifice and the EU wishes to get a precedent for further concessions.

According to the web info, 72% (http://www.economy-point.org/s/swiss-economy.html) of the Swiss are employed in the tertiary sector.

72%. And that's before we take into account that agriculture barely breaks even, industry has low to moderate profits, and the tertiary sector is where the big money is made.

The tertiary sector is also rapidly growing, while secondary and primary are shrinking.

This is totally unlike all the other developed countries who are very upset when tariffs are raised on their manufactured goods, agriculture, ect by the US or EU?

And what would it do? At most it can allow Switzerland to retaliate.

Or let anyone retaliate. Such as the US putting a Tariff on EU cars to give the big three a chance to recover. Or let the Chinese protect their domestic Grain markets. There are reasons when the WTO "suggest" don't do that countries listen. You stand them up in one place all other WTO members can use it against you when you want to press against them.


Untrue. They have already been changing their laws because of EU pressure. The EU has the Swiss by the balls and is deciding how much they wish to squeeze them. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_43/b3855183_mz035.htm)
They put a tax on the interest rate which is nothing, and can be avoided by shifting your money to a non EU country before sending it to Switzerland.
Really a no effect for the Swiss banks and lets the EU save some face.

This is totally unlike all the other developed countries who are very upset when tariffs are raised on their manufactured goods, agriculture, ect by the US or EU?

Well they are a small country who's economy is based off of banking. Not manufacture and industry. The few items they export are of high quality type that people will buy regardless of cost if they are going to buy them. The guy buying the Rolex doesn't care that it suddenly cost 1,000 dollars more now does he ?

This is totally unlike all the other developed countries who are very upset when tariffs are raised on their manufactured goods, agriculture, ect by the US or EU?
Somewhat unlike. Switzerland has significantly less pri/sec sector than other countries. It mostly sells services.


That and their manufacture is things like expensive watches, chocolates, and such.
Well yes.
Or, the Japanese watch that sold as Tissot will have to sell as Seiko. Although not really, it will just display "Made in Japan" on the back.

Somewhat unlike. Switzerland has significantly less pri/sec sector than other countries. It mostly sells services.

Well they are a small country who's economy is based off of banking. Not manufacture and industry. The few items they export are of high quality type that people will buy regardless of cost if they are going to buy them. The guy buying the Rolex doesn't care that it suddenly cost 1,000 dollars more now does he ?

The manufacturing and agricultural sectors of all or almost developed nations have been declining as a percentage of economy. That hardly makes them unsubstantial trade war wise.

Or let anyone retaliate. Such as the US putting a Tariff on EU cars to give the big three a chance to recover. Or let the Chinese protect their domestic Grain markets. There are reasons when the WTO "suggest" don't do that countries listen. You stand them up in one place all other WTO members can use it against you when you want to press against them.

The WTO lets the US, the EU, and much of the 3rd world protect their domestic agriculture sectors to a substantial degree. Its lets a substantial number of trade barriers to exist. China and the EU are relatively large markets. They have a lot of bargaining power. Its hardly a valid comparison. Deal with the EU, US, China, India, and any other countries that stand to benefit from less tax evasion beforehand and you have the WTO policy almost already decided.

They put a tax on the interest rate which is nothing, and can be avoided by shifting your money to a non EU country before sending it to Switzerland.
Really a no effect for the Swiss banks and lets the EU save some face.

It makes Switzerland a less attractive place to invest money into, is a precedent to further concessions, and is a admittance of the influence the EU has over Switzerland's internal policies.

The manufacturing and agricultural sectors of all or almost developed nations have been declining as a percentage of economy. That hardly makes them unsubstantial trade war wise.
All their petty internal pillow fights do is make China stronger.


It makes Switzerland a less attractive place to invest money into, is a precedent to further concessions, and is a admittance of the influence the EU has over Switzerland's internal policies.
I've always said it's about time we disband EU.
But, the purpose of anonymous accounts is still served even if the interest is taxed. If the said account has any interest at all, that is.

uh huh, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a push to make things better, or more moral, in our own opinions.



you're right, any minority should just stop complaining since they don't have the numbers :rolleyes:



Unlikely with people like you around.

The point I'm trying to make is that taxation is not a matter of morality. It's a matter of power. It's society deciding what it wants to do with the resources available to it. Despite the right's most fervent wishes there is such a thing as society. People defy society at their peril.

I am a small "d" democrat, so by all means argue your case and try to convince society that your way is best. I just won't feel sorry for you when you fail. And I'll bide my time should you succeed.

The point I'm trying to make is that taxation is not a matter of morality. It's a matter of power. It's The Government deciding what it wants to do with the resources available to it. Despite the right's most fervent wishes there is such a thing as society. People defy society at their peril.


Fixed.

The manufacturing and agricultural sectors of all or almost developed nations have been declining as a percentage of economy. That hardly makes them unsubstantial trade war wise.

No other developed country depends on the banks for 50% or more of their economy.


The WTO lets the US, the EU, and much of the 3rd world protect their domestic agriculture sectors to a substantial degree. Its lets a substantial number of trade barriers to exist. China and the EU are relatively large markets. They have a lot of bargaining power. Its hardly a valid comparison. Deal with the EU, US, China, India, and any other countries that stand to benefit from less tax evasion beforehand and you have the WTO policy almost already decided.

The agricultural are subsidies. Both the EU and the US justify them based of national security concerns. They are also preexisting conditions.


It makes Switzerland a less attractive place to invest money into, is a precedent to further concessions, and is a admittance of the influence the EU has over Switzerland's internal policies.
Like I said before people don't invest money in Switzerland for returns.
They invest to avoid taxes. Someone who put a billion dollars in the bank to avoid having 50% of it go into taxes really doesn't care that his interest returns went from 3% to 2%, especially since he would likely pay a higher income tax rate on the income anyways if he had left it in a European bank.

Let me put it like this.
The EU economy depends on Swiss banks. (because they loan them the money that their industry needs to pay workers buy raw materials and such).
The Swiss banks depend on being a tax shelter.

So if you remove that status from the Swiss banks, the Swiss banks Fold or vastly reduce their size. Then Europe's economy dries out of Capital and has a banking crisis.

Not immoral at all and I agree it is a damn good form of civil disobedience. Just think if 20 million people didn't pay their taxes for a year (that previously paid them of course) and instead of sending a check, they sent their reason for no payment...

Fixed.

That's a cop out. Marked, "Could do better".

Not immoral at all and I agree it is a damn good form of civil disobedience. Just think if 20 million people didn't pay their taxes for a year (that previously paid them of course) and instead of sending a check, they sent their reason for no payment...

Ahh that would be great if it could just be done like that. However the IRS has ways of screwing you over you never knew existed. It only takes one bank account emptied to realize this. Problem is that kind of robbery can't be claimed on insurance.

Ahh that would be great if it could just be done like that. However the IRS has ways of screwing you over you never knew existed. It only takes one bank account emptied to realize this. Problem is that kind of robbery can't be claimed on insurance.

But if we got those 20 million people and had their money all transferred to a good Swiss bank before hand. Then all the IRS could do is Garnish your wages. Of course you can beat that by quitting.
My plan would be to avoid taxes for 20 years depositing money in Swiss banks. then announce my reason not to pay taxes then when they try to Garnish my wages I will run off and retire in Switzerland.

The WTO is a voluntary organization with bargaining power determined by how large a market a nation or bloc possesses. All the nations that would gain from eliminating the tax evasion that some nations benefit by facilitating tax are collectively larger than the combined market share of the facilitating markets.

Actually, your summation of how the WTO works in a nice summation. What you fail to take into account is that Switzerland controls 1/3 of the relevant market. Combined with Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, both of which are strong competitors in the market for offshore funds, similar banking climates/laws and the shared interest in preserving the current situation, it is highly unlikely that a group of nations with a market share large enough the challenge that could be established.

That of course completely ignores the fact that the foundational problem lies within sovereign Swiss law that the WTO has NO authority to change. It is not a crime in Switzerland to evade taxes, and thus, no crime has been comitted at all from the standing of the Swiss government (whose views are controlling in regards to funds held within their borders). The United States and most Western powers would lose a lot more than they could possibly gain by opening up such an abrogation of national sovereignty.



The Swiss still basically enact all the same laws as the EEA and would be kicked out of EFTA if they did not. Also, that just means the EU and the US need to grow a pair and finally stamp down on tax evasion. Either that or pay hackers to get the names of the account holders so that they can be properly taxed.
See above.

Ahem, as for dealing with the original question.

Tax Evasion: I'm ambiguous here, as one locations tax evasion is another's tax boom. For example, I live directly on the border of two states (literally I'm less than half a mile from crossing a state border). I technically reside in one state, but am I really evading taxes if I go to the grocery store in the other state which has lower taxes and is coincidentally closer to my dwelling? The state I reside in likes to think so, but the other state makes the equally valid argument that living that close to a border, I inevitably make use of the goods and services provided by their state (I work in their state, by the way and go to school there paying in-state tuition costs and receive their state's scholarship funds) and thus, they choose not to call it tax evasion, but being a loyal worker and student of their state.

Another example would be (since there is also a military base here, though I won't say which one as I've probably said waaaay to much about where I live), a soldier lives outside the confines of the military installation but returns to base to purchase goods and services where they are sold without tax from not-for-profit DoD stores (and thus much cheaper than elsewhere). Both states here would like to call that tax evasion, but most people feel that the soldier is entitled.

It's not quite the same as opening a bank account with Credite Suisse (which I do have, and thus have no desire to see the US get any regulation or agreement on the subject) for the purpose of hiding money from the US government (why should I bother? The assinine US tax code taxes me at a negative rate [for those unfamiliar, that means the US government refunds me MORE than I paid to it, this year by about $3100 USD] by following the code to the letter [or as best as TurboTax understands the letter] and I make nearly twice the minimum wage).

Of course, tax FRAUD, is a different story and involves a plethora of actions that are inately immoral, but the OP didn't really ask about that.

But if we got those 20 million people and had their money all transferred to a good Swiss bank before hand. Then all the IRS could do is Garnish your wages. Of course you can beat that by quitting.
My plan would be to avoid taxes for 20 years depositing money in Swiss banks. then announce my reason not to pay taxes then when they try to Garnish my wages I will run off and retire in Switzerland.

I like the thinking however the monetary system in this world is getting tighter and tighter by the year. One thing I know is how to move money around without the government knowing exactly what I do. But I am finding they are closing the anonymous loopholes off one by one. You could hide your money in a Swiss or even Austrian pass book account however those are difficult to open now. In Austria you can't even open a Sparbuch account if you are a foreigner. Swiss accounts are not exactly easy to open either. You can do it by mail however with the ID requirements since '05 I'm not even sure you could do it by mail. The best way I found is to go through third world nations that don't have a large banking class that speaks English. That's the only way I have found to actually open an account that can be used like a regular bank account here in the US without tying it in to me.

I like the thinking however the monetary system in this world is getting tighter and tighter by the year. One thing I know is how to move money around without the government knowing exactly what I do. But I am finding they are closing the anonymous loopholes off one by one. You could hide your money in a Swiss or even Austrian pass book account however those are difficult to open now. In Austria you can't even open a Sparbuch account if you are a foreigner. Swiss accounts are not exactly easy to open either. You can do it by mail however with the ID requirements since '05 I'm not even sure you could do it by mail. The best way I found is to go through third world nations that don't have a large banking class that speaks English. That's the only way I have found to actually open an account that can be used like a regular bank account here in the US without tying it in to me.

The the trade off with putting money in Swiss accounts. Much harder to access. Really not worth it for daily banking needs. But Id would say a really good way to invest retirements assets especially if you don't mind retiring in another country. The funny thing with the Swiss is if your account is big enough they will fly an adviser out to tell you how to get the money into their account secretly.

That's a cop out. Marked, "Could do better".
Not necessarily.

Obviously you can throw out all issues of ethics or morality and really just make it a question of who has more guns. That's a dangerous road to go down, generally and perhaps even in this specific situation.

But virtually all justifications of taxation talk about society. I reject that, and consider taxation a matter between me and the government. The government doesn't equate to society, nor does it represent it. It's a subset of society, just like a corporation or an individual. Ideally it has different motives to other agents, but that's not a given. I have no different obligations in my transactions with governments than I do in my transactions with individuals or companies.

So as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things the government can do because it is not bound in its intentions, and means, by market forces. Those things are useful, and provide valuable services to me and others. It's the management of how these services are provided and to whom that can raise serious questions, which Tech-gnosis loves to pick me up on. But just assuming for a minute that the services I get actually provide me with a net benefit and approximate what I would buy if I was given the choice, then I owe the government that value just like I'd owe anyone else for services they provided me with.

Society, whether it makes sense to consider it a separate entity or not, doesn't enter into the consideration.

It depends on whether or not their reasons are motivated by a genuine desire for reform against a truly unjust law or simple greed. I find it appalling for some company or individual to take advantage of the services and protections provided by our government and then refuse to pay their share, especially when I'm busting my ass and seeing my money withdrawn to pay for government services that I use.

The the trade off with putting money in Swiss accounts. Much harder to access. Really not worth it for daily banking needs. But Id would say a really good way to invest retirements assets especially if you don't mind retiring in another country. The funny thing with the Swiss is if your account is big enough they will fly an adviser out to tell you how to get the money into their account secretly.

True you can keep large amounts socked away however its the daily banking that they can really keep tabs on you. All I need is to look at ones regular bank account and I can tell where they have been, what they are spending their money on and come up with a good idea at what you are doing in general.

Edit:

Another screwed up thing is if you don't tell your bank that you are overseas and the places you will be they freeze your account.

It depends on whether or not their reasons are motivated by a genuine desire for reform against a truly unjust law or simple greed. I find it appalling for some company or individual to take advantage of the services and protections provided by our government and then refuse to pay their share, especially when I'm busting my ass and seeing my money withdrawn to pay for government services that I use.

Well, if you see it like that then you wouldn't mind a protest if the government is handing money out like candy to corps and devaluing our currency.

True you can keep large amounts socked away however its the daily banking that they can really keep tabs on you. All I need is to look at ones regular bank account and I can tell where they have been, what they are spending their money on and come up with a good idea at what you are doing in general.

Don't let the money you want to evade taxes touch the American accounts.
Keep it in Travelers checks and make a yearly vacation to Switzerland.

Well, if you see it like that then you wouldn't mind a protest if the government is handing money out like candy to corps and devaluing our currency.

The government thinks inflation is another way to Tax people anyways.

No other developed country depends on the banks for 50% or more of their economy.

No developed country depends on banks for over 50% of their economy. At most, from what I've seen, the entire financial industry represents 15 percent of Switzerland's economy. Though I can't find a source for an exact percentage. Remember the tertiary sector, ie services, is an extremely diverse sector.


The agricultural are subsidies.

They are barriers to trade and are implicit export subsidies.

Both the EU and the US justify them based of national security concerns.

Which is bullshit. Also, given that military is tax funded and the fact that bank secrecy obscures the tracking of terrorist funding the ending of bank secrecy, the aim of the trade barriers, could be justified on national security grounds. Not that these reasons aren't bullshit. ;)

Like I said before people don't invest money in Switzerland for returns.
They invest to avoid taxes. Someone who put a billion dollars in the bank to avoid having 50% of it go into taxes really doesn't care that his interest returns went from 3% to 2%, especially since he would likely pay a higher income tax rate on the income anyways if he had left it in a European

Why not put them in another tax haven instead then? Make Switzerland earn their money not throigh tax evasion but through earning decent returns?

Let me put it like this.
The EU economy depends on Swiss banks. (because they loan them the money that their industry needs to pay workers buy raw materials and such).
The Swiss banks depend on being a tax shelter.

So if you remove that status from the Swiss banks, the Swiss banks Fold or vastly reduce their size. Then Europe's economy dries out of Capital and has a banking crisis.

Switzerland (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=100107) has already (http://themoderatevoice.com/26761/us-and-eu-pressure-spells-end-of-swiss-bank-secrecy-nachrichten-of-switzerland/) agreed to relax (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Money/Story/STIStory_350893.html) its bank secrecy laws (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Switzerland_looks_for_tax_understanding.html?siteSect=105&sid=10470265&ty=st). We'll have to test your hypothesis.

Actually, your summation of how the WTO works in a nice summation. What you fail to take into account is that Switzerland controls 1/3 of the relevant market. Combined with Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, both of which are strong competitors in the market for offshore funds, similar banking climates/laws and the shared interest in preserving the current situation, it is highly unlikely that a group of nations with a market share large enough the challenge that could be established.

The relevant market is the import export market not merely the market for offshore funds.

That of course completely ignores the fact that the foundational problem lies within sovereign Swiss law that the WTO has NO authority to change. It is not a crime in Switzerland to evade taxes, and thus, no crime has been comitted at all from the standing of the Swiss government (whose views are controlling in regards to funds held within their borders). The United States and most Western powers would lose a lot more than they could possibly gain by opening up such an abrogation of national sovereignty.

WTO's relation to Swiss banking laws is very indirect in this argument. I was said that tarriffs on Swiss goods could be used a a tool to get the Swiss to quit aiding tax evasion. Greed said the WTO would eliminate that option. I disagree.

Don't let the money you want to evade taxes touch the American accounts.
Keep it in Travelers checks and make a yearly vacation to Switzerland.

Lol, I am way ahead of this game. If you only knew.

Edit: I don't so much evade taxes because I probably pay more taxes than most of the US NSG group put together. However my main concern really is keeping it safe from the Dollar devaluing and the US legal system.

The government thinks inflation is another way to Tax people anyways.

Yes, the coming hyper-inflation is going to be the biggest tax hike ever.

http://maxbarry.com/images/covers/jg_usa_pb_proposed_big.jpg

http://maxbarry.com/images/covers/jg_usa_pb_proposed_big.jpg



Max is on to something that is for sure.

Max is on to something that is for sure.

:( Yes.

Yes, the coming hyper-inflation is going to be the biggest tax hike ever.

hey lets print 2 Trillion dollars. we don't even need an act of congress.

"Look, I am not designing next year's ad campaign here. I'm getting rid of the Government, the greatest impediment to business in history."

-John Nike, Jennifer Government.

"Look, I am not designing next year's ad campaign here. I'm getting rid of the Government, the greatest implement of big business in history."

-John Nike, Jennifer Government.


fixed.

fixed.

Figures, you have a smoking avatar.

Then again (same page): "You want to pay [consumers] for recruiting their little brothers and sisters to your brand of cigarettes[...?] Then do. Just do it.

Figures, you have a smoking avatar.

Then again (same page): "You want to pay [consumers] for recruiting their little brothers and sisters to your brand of cigarettes[...?] Then do. Just do it.

This is post Joe Camel I see.

This is post Joe Camel I see.

Post taxation, too.

Yes, the coming hyper-inflation is going to be the biggest tax hike ever.

Hyper inflation is not coming. Bendover just swapped teh bad assets to the treas.

His little monetization effort doesn't even cover it.

Now, I have no doubt that the fed is going to make us all poorer. But they are not about to give up their power by anything stupid like allowing hyperinflation. Won't happen.

His big decision is the way china is behaving, and this is why FFR has already been sub rosa raised.

Hyper inflation is not coming. Bendover just swapped teh bad assets to the treas.

His little monetization effort doesn't even cover it.

Now, I have no doubt that the fed is going to make us all poorer. But they are not about to give up their power by anything stupid like allowing hyperinflation. Won't happen.

His big decision is the way china is behaving, and this is why FFR has already been sub rosa raised.


So you don't think the scenario of not being able to sell our debt at current rates won't increase inflation? When they can't sell our debt at low rates they either have to raise them or start printing money like crazy. End result is we all take it in the ass.

So you don't think the scenario of not being able to sell our debt at current rates won't increase inflation? When they can't sell our debt at low rates they either have to raise them or start printing money like crazy. End result is we all take it in the ass.

the Fed already said they would buy up to 300 billion in bonds.

the Fed already said they would buy up to 300 billion in bonds.

That's mighty nice. 300 billion isn't the trillions that is going to be spent.

That's mighty nice. 300 billion isn't the trillions that is going to be spent.

Someone needs to talk the Chinese into buying our debt again.

So you don't think the scenario of not being able to sell our debt at current rates won't increase inflation? When they can't sell our debt at low rates they either have to raise them or start printing money like crazy. End result is we all take it in the ass.

Yes, we will take it in the ass. But it won't be because of hyper-inflation. Interest rates will go up first. And that is what will happen.

The Fed >> Gov. And the gov has no real power over the fed. They are not about to chuck their sweet spot away. The fed has never in its history gone down the hyperinflationary route, and it won't start doing it now.

That is not to say that we won't get fucked. We'll just be deflation fucked, not hyperinflation fucked.

That's mighty nice. 300 billion isn't the trillions that is going to be spent.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/US_Federal_Debt(gross).JPG

Someone needs to talk the Chinese into buying our debt again.

They got themselves into the trap. I think they think they can get out by just not buying more. But their squirming will just wrap them up more. Funny thing is that they thought they had us by buying all our debt. Reminds me of an old childhood joke. Me Chinese me play joke me put pee pee in your coke. Except we switched the bottles around when they weren't looking.

They got themselves into the trap. I think they think they can get out by just not buying more. But their squirming will just wrap them up more. Funny thing is that they thought they had us by buying all our debt. Reminds me of an old childhood joke. Me Chinese me play joke me put pee pee in your coke. Except we switched the bottles around when they weren't looking.

They had a reason to buy so much Debt. They needed a large reserve of US dollars due to past currency issues (cultural revolution, great leap forward).
They have been warning us they had about enough of it for years.

They had a reason to buy so much Debt. They needed a large reserve of US dollars due to past currency issues (cultural revolution, great leap forward).
They have been warning us they had about enough of it for years.

I get what they were doing and it worked fine for awhile. However can't help to think they played it right into a corner. Now they are stuck. Large reserves of US dollars are useless if they are not worth a damn.

I get what they were doing and it worked fine for awhile. However can't help to think they played it right into a corner. Now they are stuck. Large reserves of US dollars are useless if they are not worth a damn.

Which is why I think the Fed reserve threatens to print money. So they will buy more Debt.

I do everything I legally can to weasel out of as much as I can, but it's not worth it in the long run to break the law. You're always going to have to 'render unto Caesar' one way or another.

Which is why I think the Fed reserve threatens to print money. So they will buy more Debt.

That's about it.

But they can't buy, and we won't print. So it's really more of a jawboning thing at this point.

A good spell of inflation would not be that bad for the average american, since most of the liabilities are redeemable in cash, and most of the assets are not very liquid. (Which is really how it works if you think about it).

Therefore it won't happen.

That's about it.

But they can't buy, and we won't print. So it's really more of a jawboning thing at this point.

A good spell of inflation would not be that bad for the average american, since most of the liabilities are redeemable in cash, and most of the assets are not very liquid. (Which is really how it works if you think about it).

Therefore it won't happen.

If you have fixed rate loan you love inflation. You go laugh all the way to the bank.

If you have fixed rate loan you love inflation. You go laugh all the way to the bank.

Yes. And most of the yankee doodle J6P liabilities are fixed rate loans. (Or capped)

So the question is, why are we dragging trillions from the taxpayer to make the bad assets (loans) whole, instead of just inflating our way out of this? Do you see any effort to really start inflation?

No. Partly because it's not that easy, and partly because the people who own the money don't want it.

There's not going to be hyper inflation.

Yes. And most of the yankee doodle J6P liabilities are fixed rate loans. (Or capped)

So the question is, why are we dragging trillions from the taxpayer to make the bad assets (loans) whole, instead of just inflating our way out of this? Do you see any effort to really start inflation?

No. Partly because it's not that easy, and partly because the people who own the money don't want it.

There's not going to be hyper inflation.

I dont think we will hit Hyper inflation. somewhere around 7.5%a year doesn't seem uncalled for. The problem with inflation is we lose investments. Why invest if returns rarely beat inflation?

A good spell of inflation would not be that bad for the average american, since most of the liabilities are redeemable in cash, and most of the assets are not very liquid. (Which is really how it works if you think about it).

Therefore it won't happen.

Oh, so the "people who own the money" don't want it, specifically in order to be cruel and evil to the average American. Are they lizard people too, do they psychically feast on suffering?

Oh, so the "people who own the money" don't want it, specifically in order to be cruel and evil to the average American. Are they lizard people too, do they psychically feast on suffering?

He said it not that easy, too much inflation and people don't invest. They buy Gold and other commodities to hedge against currency. Investing in a Ton of gold doesn't produce jobs the same way as investing in a business.

I think it's definitely immoral. Whether you like it or not, you reap the benefits of taxation (at least in most Western countries, ie the USA, which is where I'm from, and thus will be speaking in terms of). You drive on the roads, your children attend the schools, you utilize the government services that are paid for by taxes, and so on down the line.

If you don't pay the taxes you owe, you're using those services in a way which I would term immoral, yes. I mean, maybe if you're a shut-in who never leaves their home or uses any service or amenity that is paid for with taxpayer money, but I seriously doubt there are many of those hanging around. Especially not on the internet. :P

I think it's definitely immoral. Whether you like it or not, you reap the benefits of taxation (at least in most Western countries, ie the USA, which is where I'm from, and thus will be speaking in terms of). You drive on the roads, your children attend the schools, you utilize the government services that are paid for by taxes, and so on down the line.

Yeah, but you also reap the punishments, whether you like it or not. How many tens of thousands die on those roads every year?

And what about everything else paid for by taxes - like, oh, invading Iraq and killing half a million people? Isn't that immoral - dare I say, more immoral than driving on a bit of road you didn't pay your 0.01 cent share of?

I think it's definitely immoral. Whether you like it or not, you reap the benefits of taxation (at least in most Western countries, ie the USA, which is where I'm from, and thus will be speaking in terms of). You drive on the roads, your children attend the schools, you utilize the government services that are paid for by taxes, and so on down the line.

I think we are talking about income tax.
In the US roads are paid for mostly by gasoline Tax.
Schools are paid by property tax. the Amount from the state depends on the state, but my state doesn't have income tax so that's mostly sales tax. Funny how most of the examples people use for services are paid by means other then income tax

If you don't pay the taxes you owe, you're using those services in a way which I would term immoral, yes. I mean, maybe if you're a shut-in who never leaves their home or uses any service or amenity that is paid for with taxpayer money, but I seriously doubt there are many of those hanging around. Especially not on the internet. :P

Normally the reason people feel they are justified in avoiding taxes is because they feel the government is spending too much money for no reason.

Yeah, but you also reap the punishments, whether you like it or not. How many tens of thousands die on those roads every year?

What are you suggesting, that we don't fund the roads because people get into accidents? Yeah, that'll work out great...

I think we are talking about income tax.
In the US roads are paid for mostly by gasoline Tax.
Schools are paid by property tax. the Amount from the state depends on the state, but my state doesn't have income tax so that's mostly sales tax. Funny how most of the examples people use for services are paid by means other then income tax

Normally the reason people feel they are justified in avoiding taxes is because they feel the government is spending too much money for no reason.

The subject just said "taxes", so I'm talking about taxes in general. :)

I'd argue government spends a lot of money for a lot of reasons, and frankly, being a lefty, I think they could stand to spend a lot more on a lot of things that aren't getting the money they deserve (i.e. social services). Those who withhold taxes because they feel the government is spending too much money, IMO, are completely in the wrong. You petition your government, you don't break the law. It's stupid, and anyway, they don't ever mean "spending too much" - they inevitably mean "spending too much on things I, personally do not feel are important, but in the meantime, while I'm not paying my taxes because they're spending money on X, I'm going to keep driving on these roads and sending my kids to school and possibly receiving social security, etc."

I read "Texas" the first time.

>.>

Avoiding Texas is not immoral, its a very good idea...

The subject just said "taxes", so I'm talking about taxes in general. :)

Really hard to illegally avoid non income tax. Not like you can hide your house to avoid property tax, And the only way to avoid gas and sales tax illegally is to steal.


I'd argue government spends a lot of money for a lot of reasons, and frankly, being a lefty, I think they could stand to spend a lot more on a lot of things that aren't getting the money they deserve (i.e. social services). Those who withhold taxes because they feel the government is spending too much money, IMO, are completely in the wrong. You petition your government, you don't break the law. It's stupid, and anyway, they don't ever mean "spending too much" - they inevitably mean "spending too much on things I, personally do not feel are important, but in the meantime, while I'm not paying my taxes because they're spending money on X, I'm going to keep driving on these roads and sending my kids to school and possibly receiving social security, etc."

A lot of people feel the wanton spending is detrimental to the economy. As are the Taxes themselves. In which case the avoidance of taxes could be seen as an attempt to minimize the damage done by poor government policy, and hope the government will change the policy because it feels the money is not their to spend.

Avoiding Texas is not immoral, its a very good idea...

*points guns at you*
Whats so wrong bout TEXAS.

What are you suggesting, that we don't fund the roads because people get into accidents? Yeah, that'll work out great...

No. I am suggesting that there are negatives along with the positives of what taxes bring, and focusing on the positives (as in, you're IMMORAL for using a road without paying taxes! Immoral, immoral!) ignores that the two may well balance, morally speaking.

Or not balance, if we're comparing "using a public road" with "supporting the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

The relevant market is the import export market not merely the market for offshore funds.
In this case, I disagree. Your suggestion of punitive tarrifs would certainly involve the entire import/expor market, but is essentially entirely unrelated to the market you want to change. However, most Swiss trade is with the European Union, which within the framework of the Swiss agreements with the EU the WTO really can't do much about (it would be illegal for the EU states to violate the EU-Swiss agreements), though for that matter, I was under the impression that most swiss trading was in terms of trade of services which generally can't be tariffed anyway, with major material exports being chemical and medicinal in nature (the latter being something no sane nation would ever place a tariff on).



WTO's relation to Swiss banking laws is very indirect in this argument. I was said that tarriffs on Swiss goods could be used a a tool to get the Swiss to quit aiding tax evasion. Greed said the WTO would eliminate that option. I disagree.

I agree with Greed because Swiss law does NOT consider tax evasion a crime or wrong. To get the Swiss to stop aiding tax evasion you will have to apply coercive pressure to abrogate their sovereign decision. Because of this, I am with Greed in saying that the WTO would likely side with the Swiss on such a measure, and would never make it WTO policy to attempt to coercively meddle in the sovereign legal affairs of a country. It's a precedent no nation would ever want to set (the US, for example certainly doesn't want the WTO meddling with its sovereign laws regarding taxes, despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the developped world and arguably the most assinine system).

Breaking tax laws to evade paying your share is theft, and immoral, yes--though if you did it because your money was paying for something truly awful (say, waging a war of aggression) that would probably legitimate it.

So by your logic, if a crook breaks into my home and sticks a gun in my face and demands my money, and I refuse to give it to him, I'm committing "theft."

So by your logic, if a crook breaks into my home and sticks a gun in my face and demands my money, and I refuse to give it to him, I'm committing "theft."

Something truly Awful varies. To me whats truly awful is the government fixing wage cost which drives up unemployment. Then further worsening the problem by paying out unemployment benefits and encouraging the labor market to be fixed rather then flexibly.

A lot of people feel the wanton spending is detrimental to the economy. As are the Taxes themselves. In which case the avoidance of taxes could be seen as an attempt to minimize the damage done by poor government policy, and hope the government will change the policy because it feels the money is not their to spend.

Like I said before, you petition your government, you don't illegally avoid paying taxes. I think it's kind of a lame, passive-aggressive way to go about things - doubly so for the fact that it accomplishes nothing and comes across as greedy more than anything else. Then again, I'm one of those people who would never consider withholding my taxes because I think it's wrong - and furthermore, it's just not something that would even cross my mind.

No. I am suggesting that there are negatives along with the positives of what taxes bring, and focusing on the positives (as in, you're IMMORAL for using a road without paying taxes! Immoral, immoral!) ignores that the two may well balance, morally speaking.

Or not balance, if we're comparing "using a public road" with "supporting the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

Your example was kind of... out there.

But... that's not all your taxes go to, either. At the same time as you're withholding funds for wars (which are not, generally speaking, the slaughter of innocents, though in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, and some others, that is debatable and I will hand you that point), you're also withholding money that's feeding and housing people in this country. You're not spending your share for food stamps and WIC, for subsidized housing, structure (ie roads, bridges) maintainance, etc.

Like I said before, you petition your government, you don't illegally avoid paying taxes. I think it's kind of a lame, passive-aggressive way to go about things - doubly so for the fact that it accomplishes nothing and comes across as greedy more than anything else. Then again, I'm one of those people who would never consider withholding my taxes because I think it's wrong - and furthermore, it's just not something that would even cross my mind.



Your example was kind of... out there.

But... that's not all your taxes go to, either. At the same time as you're withholding funds for wars (which are not, generally speaking, the slaughter of innocents, though in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, and some others, that is debatable and I will hand you that point), you're also withholding money that's feeding and housing people in this country. You're not spending your share for food stamps and WIC, for subsidized housing, structure (ie roads, bridges) maintainance, etc.

I find problems with a large amount of the social spending too. Unemployment benefits often encourage labor markets to be inflexibility. Subsidized housing inflates home cost for everyone causing more people to need subsidized housing. Its not jsut war I oppose but government programs and polices that create more of the problems they are trying to "help".

Your example was kind of... out there.

But... that's not all your taxes go to, either. At the same time as you're withholding funds for wars (which are not, generally speaking, the slaughter of innocents, though in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, and some others, that is debatable and I will hand you that point), you're also withholding money that's feeding and housing people in this country. You're not spending your share for food stamps and WIC, for subsidized housing, structure (ie roads, bridges) maintainance, etc.

Yes, taxes pay for good things too. But the problem is you can't have one without the other. If you pay taxes, you pay for the good and bad, and if you don't, you don't. I guess it all comes down to whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. To me, the bad in this case is bad enough that I can definitely see a moral argument for avoiding taxes.

Hypothetically, if you were to give me 1 billion dollars I could do lots of good with it, and would try to. But let's say that in addition to funding good stuff like public education and health care, I also ensured that a newborn baby would be ritually tortured and murdered. Would you feel comfortable giving me that billion dollars? (What if the ritual torture and murder was to be done on live TV and you had to watch it, would your answer change?)

I find problems with a large amount of the social spending too. Unemployment benefits often encourage labor markets to be inflexibility. Subsidized housing inflates home cost for everyone causing more people to need subsidized housing. Its not jsut war I oppose but government programs and polices that create more of the problems they are trying to "help".

I can't say I agree with you on any of that, frankly. But that's a debate for another time. :D ...I wish this board had better smilies, though, and that is an issue for the moment. (Oh god, it's 4am, I am debating politics. Something wrong with me. xD)

Oh, so the "people who own the money" don't want it, specifically in order to be cruel and evil to the average American. Are they lizard people too, do they psychically feast on suffering?

Did I say that? Stop being ridiculous.

You are exactly why this sort of thing happens. If you can't see why the people who are in control of the money supply would want to do this, then you shouldn't be interposing your little asides.

Yes, taxes pay for good things too. But the problem is you can't have one without the other. If you pay taxes, you pay for the good and bad, and if you don't, you don't. I guess it all comes down to whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. To me, the bad in this case is bad enough that I can definitely see a moral argument for avoiding taxes.

Hypothetically, if you were to give me 1 billion dollars I could do lots of good with it, and would try to. But let's say that in addition to funding good stuff like public education and health care, I also ensured that a newborn baby would be ritually tortured and murdered. Would you feel comfortable giving me that billion dollars? (What if the ritual torture and murder was to be done on live TV and you had to watch it, would your answer change?)

Can't say I agree there, really, but like I said, I'm not the type for theft as civil disobedience. I don't picket, either. :P (I'm kidding here. It's a bit late, I get silly... apologies.)

...is it okay if my answer changes depending on the baby? Kidding, I'm kidding. I'd be wondering where I got the billion dollars...

I can't say I agree with you on any of that, frankly. But that's a debate for another time. :D ...I wish this board had better smilies, though, and that is an issue for the moment. (Oh god, it's 4am, I am debating politics. Something wrong with me. xD)

Only 3 Am here. But shoot its a long weekend what else you going to do.
My point was that what is wrong or right is not set in stone.
One person see fault with the spending another person sees good.
My viewpoint is and continues to be every dollar I deny the government is a dollar better spent in the economy, that does more good.

Tax day is coming up for Americans on April 15th. Question that I have is if a person does everything in their power legal or not to avoid paying taxes is it immoral?

Yes, it is.
Because if you don't pay the taxes you are supposed to pay, someone else is going to pay in your stead.
1.Either someone is going to pay more taxes that he should
2.Or someone is not going to receive the services he's entitled

Only 3 Am here. But shoot its a long weekend what else you going to do.
My point was that what is wrong or right is not set in stone.
One person see fault with the spending another person sees good.
My viewpoint is and continues to be every dollar I deny the government is a dollar better spent in the economy, that does more good.

It's not a long weekend for me - tail end of Spring Break, so I'm back to class Monday. :P

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't agree there, but I'm not exactly a hardcore capitalist, so take that how you will. My view is you've got your money after taxes, you pay your taxes, the government keeps everything running and you're able to spend the rest of your money on whatever. ...okay, not whatever, but living expenses and stuff. As if I ever have any left over after that. xD

Yes, it is.
Because if you don't pay the taxes you are supposed to pay, someone else is going to pay in your stead.
1.Either someone is going to pay more taxes that he should
2.Or someone is not going to receive the services he's entitled

or 3. We borrow more money from China.

It's not a long weekend for me - tail end of Spring Break, so I'm back to class Monday. :P

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't agree there, but I'm not exactly a hardcore capitalist, so take that how you will. My view is you've got your money after taxes, you pay your taxes, the government keeps everything running and you're able to spend the rest of your money on whatever. ...okay, not whatever, but living expenses and stuff. As if I ever have any left over after that. xD

Haven't really had to pay Taxes since I am in college. Maybe if i reported the odd jobs I do I would have to. As I get paid in cash I have no intention of reporting it. I understand your views even though i am not a big social welfare type.

Not necessarily.

Obviously you can throw out all issues of ethics or morality and really just make it a question of who has more guns. That's a dangerous road to go down, generally and perhaps even in this specific situation.

But virtually all justifications of taxation talk about society. I reject that, and consider taxation a matter between me and the government. The government doesn't equate to society, nor does it represent it. It's a subset of society, just like a corporation or an individual. Ideally it has different motives to other agents, but that's not a given. I have no different obligations in my transactions with governments than I do in my transactions with individuals or companies.

So as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things the government can do because it is not bound in its intentions, and means, by market forces. Those things are useful, and provide valuable services to me and others. It's the management of how these services are provided and to whom that can raise serious questions, which Tech-gnosis loves to pick me up on. But just assuming for a minute that the services I get actually provide me with a net benefit and approximate what I would buy if I was given the choice, then I owe the government that value just like I'd owe anyone else for services they provided me with.

Society, whether it makes sense to consider it a separate entity or not, doesn't enter into the consideration.

No. Tax is a matter between you and society. To say otherwise is a convenient and disingenuous argument. The right wants to keep the electorate estranged from government so that it (the electorate) cannot use the tools of government to re-distribute wealth and adopt policies that it (the right) fears.

Hence, the right tries to sever the relationship between society and government and forever paints government as evil.

Democracy and government are the ordinary person's weapon against those people, especially on the right, who want to screw us. Much better we screw them. Taxation is an elegant way to do this.

Did I say that? Stop being ridiculous.


You didn't mention lizard people, no. But you did say:

A good spell of inflation would not be that bad for the average american, since most of the liabilities are redeemable in cash, and most of the assets are not very liquid. (Which is really how it works if you think about it).

Therefore it won't happen.

That certainly seemed to suggest that the motivations were specifically to make bad things for the average American.

You are exactly why this sort of thing happens.

Oh I'm sorry. Next time I read your posts, I'll try not to wreck the economy. I guess I get out of hand, what with my god-like powers.

If you can't see why the people who are in control of the money supply would want to do this, then you shouldn't be interposing your little asides.

Well, if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean, perhaps you shouldn't blurt out half-assed nonsense about sadistic overlords out to deliberately cause harm.

or 3. We borrow more money from China.

And sell your country to Hu Jintao and his happy band of labour exploiters.

Haven't really had to pay Taxes since I am in college. Maybe if i reported the odd jobs I do I would have to. As I get paid in cash I have no intention of reporting it. I understand your views even though i am not a big social welfare type.

Haha, same, actually. I pay the usual payroll taxes when I have a regular summer job, but I don't pay the annual taxes because I'm in college and my mother can still claim me as a dependent. :P Which she does, and thus my share is accounted for and all that good junk. I'm the fun kind of lefty, so obviously I am, hee. :D

No. Tax is a matter between you and society. To say otherwise is a convenient and disingenuous argument. The right wants to keep the electorate estranged from government so that it (the electorate) cannot use the tools of government to re-distribute wealth and adopt policies that it (the right) fears.

Its not just a fear redistribution of wealth is a disincentive to succeed and prosper. The net result is a drop in production that hurts everyone.
Sinking ships drown everyone.

Hence, the right tries to sever the relationship between society and government and forever paints government as evil.

Democracy and government are the ordinary person's weapon against those people, especially on the right, who want to screw us. Much better we screw them. Taxation is an elegant way to do this.

I find this to be one of the worst aspects of are democracy. Electing people who are out to get the other guy just because his is in the numerical minority is never good politics. It was one of the things that had turned me off to Obama when he said I am going to raise the Tax on the other guy. I would find the current Tax system more just if we had a means to raise or lower everyone taxes together in some sort of ratio. So that way we all decide together whether the extra spending is merited, as opposed to the current regime which is stick the bill with that guy on the right I think makes too much money.

Haha, same, actually. I pay the usual payroll taxes when I have a regular summer job, but I don't pay the annual taxes because I'm in college and my mother can still claim me as a dependent. :P Which she does, and thus my share is accounted for and all that good junk. I'm the fun kind of lefty, so obviously I am, hee. :D

I worked for my parents during the summer doing back flow testing(type of plumbing) and my parents paid me in Cash. They didn't show me as an employee and I didn't report the income. We split the difference between on the diffrence that would have gone to the government. Win win really.

I find this to be one of the worst aspects of are democracy. Electing people who are out to get the other guy just because his is in the numerical minority is never good politics.

That's where constitutions should kick in and prevent shit from happening.

And sell your country to Hu Jintao and his happy band of labour exploiters.

Until recently it has been a good deal, normally coming in well below the rate of growth.

That's where constitutions should kick in and prevent shit from happening.

I would definitely support a constitutional amendment for a flat tax, or even a SCOTUS ruling to that affect.

I worked for my parents during the summer doing back flow testing(type of plumbing) and my parents paid me in Cash. They didn't show me as an employee and I didn't report the income. We split the difference between on the diffrence that would have gone to the government. Win win really.

That makes sense - I wouldn't really expect most parents to report their kids working for them anyway. :P I just hope I get a job worth putting on tax forms this summer, lol. I'm tired of being a cashier or a bakery slave. xD

Well, if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean, perhaps you shouldn't blurt out half-assed nonsense about sadistic overlords out to deliberately cause harm.

They aren't sadistic. It's just business.

If you can't be bothered to find out how money works, then yes, you are part of the problem. None of it is half assed.

Were you screaming from the rooftops when Timmy transferred the Maiden Lane 'assets' to the treasury? No. You weren't. In fact, you don't even know what I am talking about.

So don't accuse me of anything.

That makes sense - I wouldn't really expect most parents to report their kids working for them anyway. :P I just hope I get a job worth putting on tax forms this summer, lol. I'm tired of being a cashier or a bakery slave. xD

The job would have been very tax reportable. I was easily making 1,000 dollars a week that summer. I also got to avoid medicare and Social security tax.

The job would have been very tax reportable. I was easily making 1,000 dollars a week that summer. I also got to avoid medicare and Social security tax.

Woah. oo; that is a nice job, jeez. I'm lucky if I make $1,000 a month during the summer. In the school year, I'm happy to make $200/mo., but that's down to the U.S. government. (Speaking of-- taxes? Pay my gorram work study job. And yes I'm bitter that I can't make more, lol.)

Woah. oo; that is a nice job, jeez. I'm lucky if I make $1,000 a month during the summer. In the school year, I'm happy to make $200/mo., but that's down to the U.S. government. (Speaking of-- taxes? Pay my gorram work study job. And yes I'm bitter that I can't make more, lol.)

Well the job requires licensing and a few years of experience in plumbing or irrigation (which i got working for my step dad in high school). Though it is about to make considerably less, I was getting paid so much because Texas had just expanded its requirement of items needing Backflow prevention testing. So increased demand and a few years until supply of testers would be available to test them. Basically let me charge someone 150 dollars for 15 minutes worth of work.

Well the job requires licensing and a few years of experience in plumbing or irrigation (which i got working for my step dad in high school). Though it is about to make considerably less, I was getting paid so much because Texas had just expanded its requirement of items needing Backflow prevention testing. So increased demand and a few years until supply of testers would be available to test them. Basically let me charge someone 150 dollars for 15 minutes worth of work.

Ahh, I see. ...eek. I feel bad for the people having to pay that. :\ That's just kinda sad.

Ahh, I see. ...eek. I feel bad for the people having to pay that. :\ That's just kinda sad.

Homes were only 60 dollars. I largely tested businesses which for the most part had to use a slightly more complicated device. Also businesses wanted it done right away because loss of water, is loss of profit, where as few cities would shut off home water supplies. So I could schedule home test for slow days.

No. Tax is a matter between you and society. To say otherwise is a convenient and disingenuous argument. The right wants to keep the electorate estranged from government so that it (the electorate) cannot use the tools of government to re-distribute wealth and adopt policies that it (the right) fears.
Okay, now you're just being silly. "The government" is a huge number of people, most of whom are not up for election and are in no way incentivised to do anything but please their immediate superiors. Those superiors again just try and please their superiors, with the ultimate end usually being "performance targets" established as a means of looking good come election time. I'm not aware of any government entity other than the (unelected) RBA and the courts which try to do a good job for the sake of actually serving anyone or, more importantly, standing for a moral principle.

So this government is not equivalent to me or anyone else I know. Hence, at least myself and those people (who I presume to be part of society) are not part of the government, and vice versa. Worse, I myself am not even allowed to vote. Even if I were, my vote would count the same as that of people who don't want to vote and who certainly don't know anything about any of the issues we are supposed to vote on. I have no idea in what sort of world you live, but here, in pizza shops that employ poor people from outer suburbs, no one knows or cares about elections. As such, whatever ends up getting elected does not represent these people as they are. All it does is represent at best the impulsive, disgruntled and thoroughly annoyed thought they had when they had to go out of their way to make it to some polling booth. And bitch to me about it afterwards, wishing we had voluntary voting so they didn't have to bother.

I am not "the right", and I don't associate myself with any right-wing parties on this earth. In fact, other than the Liberal Democrats there exists no party in Australia that even approximates my views.

But the idea that I, or the world I interact with on a daily basis, is represented by, for example, John Howard or Kevin Rudd by virtue of an evening on ABC TV every three years telling me so, that's just ridiculous. Even idealised democracy is not a blank cheque, and means in itself nothing in terms of legitimacy or moral value. Democracy as it actually exists severs every connection between the government as an institution like any other, and real people and their interests.

Democracy and government are the ordinary person's weapon against those people, especially on the right, who want to screw us. Much better we screw them. Taxation is an elegant way to do this.
Marx died a long time ago. It's time for his views to go as well.

I can tell you that I feel no connection to any government on this planet, and that the majority of people I know don't either. To a country, or a society, maybe. But not a government. I can tell you that whether someone manages to get enough suits on their side in parliament or not tells you nothing about what is good for society, or what the people society is made of actually want. And I can tell you that I certainly feel capable of making a lot more adult decisions than the government lets me, without causing death and destruction to everyone around me.

All these things I can say without invoking images of class warfare. That's the domain of those who need to justify what government has become, apparently.

You need to get off the high horse here and stop believing that because whoever you work for managed to convince enough randoms to tick his name on a piece of paper, his will now reigns supreme. It doesn't, his will gained nothing by his getting elected. He's no better a person than before, no more correct in any of his views, opinions and actions. All he has now is a bunch of guns at his disposal. It sounds like psychosis when you now claim that he represents some higher, indisputable entity and that gives him the right to do as he pleases. And that is what it is, that is why all politicians are ultimately unhinged and why all the worst mass murderers in history weren't capitalists or businessmen or scientists or had any other vocation where you have nothing but your own judgement and reality to measure it against. They were politicians, and they did what they did because they fell into the trap of believing they could justify their every whim by referring to the greater good. I don't buy it. Hell, I hope they don't buy it themselves and that it's just an elaborate facade.

You can either try and make an argument to convince me, or you can go back to claiming that might makes right. The latter would be more honest, of course. But if you do that, I think for that honesty's sake you should stop referring to society, morality or obligations when you talk about these matters.

I have always wondered if politicians deliberately leave tax loopholes so that they and their friends get to benefit from them, only changing them when they become more widely known. Then again paranoia runs in my family.

Just make it a game: if you can find it, you can tax it. If you can't, you're not getting a cent. I back myself and private industry to outdo any government on the planet.

It's not a game, it's a matter of justice. Should rich and powerful people be able to use their resources to become even more rich and powerful at the expense of the public good--especially while people without such resources are forced to pick up the slack? No.

Tax evasion is not an ounce more legitimate than simple theft. Indeed, since the sums involved are often much larger, it is probably a more egregious problem.

It's not a game, it's a matter of justice. Should rich and powerful people be able to use their resources to become even more rich and powerful at the expense of the public good--especially while people without such resources are forced to pick up the slack? No.
But vice versa is okay?

I'm not asking not to pay any taxes. I'm asking to pay the equivalent of the services I actually receive. I just don't believe that someone who ends up with a tax bill of millions every year actually received the appropriate return for that money. So anything above such a return is ultimately just a forced subsidy for others, which I don't consider legitimate.

But vice versa is okay?

Is stealing from the rich okay? No.

I'm not asking not to pay any taxes. I'm asking to pay the equivalent of the services I actually receive.

This would make sense if taxation were actually a charge for services. It is not; it is a determination of ownership. You are not "deprived" of that which is taxed; you never had it in the first place in any sense but the administrative.

This would make sense if taxation were actually a charge for services.
Well, most people in this thread saw it as such.

It is not; it is a determination of ownership. You are not "deprived" of that which is taxed; you never had it in the first place in any sense but the administrative.
Which then poses the question...why does it say it's mine on my pay cheque?

Which then poses the question...why does it say it's mine on my pay cheque?

Administrative convenience. You have the rights of ownership over money you've borrowed, too.

This fact would only matter if it were impossible for you to know beforehand that the money you receive on your pay check were taxed. But of course you know this, and if you are wise you take it into account when making decisions.

Administrative convenience. You have the rights of ownership over money you've borrowed, too.
But we know precisely why that is, and why I have the obligation to pay it back to someone else. We don't know anything about why we have to pay taxes when we take the service provision part out of it.

This fact would only matter if it were impossible for you to know beforehand that the money you receive on your pay check were taxed. But of course you know this, and if you are wise you take it into account when making decisions.
I can know lots of bad things beforehand. I can react to them and try to minimise the damage too. That doesn't mean they're any less bad.

Ultimately someone is paying some actually existing money, and the government is taking that money without asking. It doesn't matter who held administrative ownership at that point when we consider just why the government has the right to do this. Someone is being made worse off without having done anything to deserve it.

We don't know anything about why we have to pay taxes when we take the service provision part out of it.

That's circular. "Why we have to pay taxes" is only a question that has to be answered on those terms if you own the money in the first place. But you do not.

I can know lots of bad things beforehand. I can react to them and try to minimise the damage too. That doesn't mean they're any less bad.

It is not a sufficient condition in itself, no. But it is the main relevant one here.

Ultimately someone is paying some actually existing money, and the government is taking that money without asking. It doesn't matter who held administrative ownership at that point when we consider just why the government has the right to do this.

I agree! This is precisely my point. It doesn't matter that you have administrative ownership. The question taxation answers is not "Why should NL be deprived of what is rightfully his?" but "How should wealth be allocated?" Its answer, then, depends not on saying "NL should pay because he owes x quantity to society for services rendered", but on saying "Taxation helps us provide certain valuable and worthy goods that are worth funding."

Libertarians conflate the two because they assume a "natural" framework of property rights that is superior to that created by positive tax law: all distribution beyond the free market thus becomes redistribution with presumed illegitimacy. We have mostly moved beyond this conception in our political morality (even figures like Milton Friedman advance free markets on utilitarian grounds), but unfortunately there are still traces of it in the terminology we use with respect to taxation.

Someone is being made worse off without having done anything to deserve it.

In any decision of "Who is to have what?", everyone who is not the particular one chosen pays an opportunity cost. That is the nature of the matter.

But you do not.


Why not?

Why not?

Because ownership is a legal relationship: it is subsequent to social legitimation. Anything else is simply possession (without any claim against anyone else), and when done in contravention of the law, usurpation.

You do not have the right to rule over others; you are thus not entitled to claim what you think is right and enforce it against others.

I agree! This is precisely my point. It doesn't matter that you have administrative ownership. The question taxation answers is not "Why should NL be deprived of what is rightfully his?" but "How should wealth be allocated?"
You do realise where this leads, right? You're implicitly assuming that wealth just happens. But it doesn't, wealth doesn't just appear. Wealth is not, has never been and will never be the product of society. It's the product of someone's brains and their work. Your entire system is based then on using these brains to feed those without, and depends on those with brains to play along.

And ultimately, I have no obligation to play along, and you're working hard on taking away any incentives as well. And so I have no obligation to let you take whatever you want to take. I'll do whatever I can to turn what you call my "administrative" ownership into a real ownership, and I'd be no less wrong in doing so than the government would be in turning it into their ownership. Because remember, the government doesn't own the taxes I pay either. It didn't earn them and has no other connection with them. It appears to me then that it's just a matter of "first and best dressed".

Because ownership is a legal relationship: it is subsequent to social legitimation. Anything else is simply possession (without any claim against anyone else), and when done in contravention of the law, usurpation.

You do not have the right to rule over others; you are thus not entitled to claim what you think is right and enforce it against others.

What if I was to say that every right is subsequent to social legitimation, and that property rights are no more legitimate than say, the right to privacy, or the right to free speech?

edit: I guess I'm saying that avoiding taxes is no less immoral than avoiding self censorship if society decides that you're not allowed to voice some opinions of yours.

I'd argue government spends a lot of money for a lot of reasons, and frankly, being a lefty, I think they could stand to spend a lot more on a lot of things that aren't getting the money they deserve (i.e. social services).

The debt is ten trillion dollars, and the deficit is one trillion.

:) Looking to make a new high-score?
Those who withhold taxes because they feel the government is spending too much money, IMO, are completely in the wrong.

Yup, the just make the problem worse by forcing the middle-class to be taxed more, and by forcing the Government to print and borrow more money.

You're implicitly assuming that wealth just happens.

No, I'm implicitly assuming that wealth is not something that anyone has an inherent claim to. You're conflating moral relations with material ones.

I'm going to take on your distributive arguments directly now, but I want to clarify something first: even if you could (as you cannot) make an argument of entitlement for the proceeds of the market, it would still not legitimate extra-legal tax evasion. Society has the right to be wrong, and you do not have the right to rule; politically speaking, in the framework of the social contract your right to property always stems from social legitimation, even if, morally speaking, the right society ought to recognize originates from your own labor.

But it doesn't, wealth doesn't just appear. Wealth is not, has never been and will never be the product of society. It's the product of someone's brains and their work.

No one ever creates much wealth with their brains and their work and nothing else. Wealth is a social product. That's why markets exist.

Your entire system is based then on using these brains to feed those without, and depends on those with brains to play along.

The first principle of society (and of the market as well, of course) is mutual benefit. It is a social fact in any economic system that virtually all people benefit massively from other people's labor, and this applies both to the labor of the rich and to the labor of the poor. (That is why the gross national product of any country is far greater in the real world than it would be if every citizen were on a desert island.) The market puts forward one standard as to how this can be done justly: your voluntary choice to consent to the exchange of labor for payment. The democrat (and the socialist, more fully) puts forward another standard: your equal participation in the rules governing the economic conditions in which your labor is exchanged. Taxation violates neither: no one is forced to work (and taxation is merely another condition on the exchange of labor for payment), and no one is restricted from political participation.

And ultimately, I have no obligation to play along,

Yes, you do. You are required, first, to obey the laws set forth to ensure the mutual protection of freedom, and second, to grant political support to the laws that guarantee justice for all--even if they do so at your expense.

Because remember, the government doesn't own the taxes I pay either. It didn't earn them and has no other connection with them.

"The government" is not a private entity and has no need to "earn them." It is the vehicle of allocation, not a recipient of allocation in itself. It is the individuals to whom property is (or services are) allocated who must make a claim, though at least some legitimate claims have little to do with what has been "earned."

What if I was to say that every right is subsequent to social legitimation, and that property rights are no more legitimate than say, the right to privacy, or the right to free speech?

Both privacy and free speech seem fairly clearly "competitive" freedoms to me--that is to say, their pursuit interferes to some degree with the pursuit of other legitimate values. So, yes, I'd say that they are subsequent to social legitimation, too.

As to whether they are more or less legitimate than property rights, I think privacy and free speech are more important rights: free speech is essential to democracy and privacy is pretty crucial to individual freedom, while a misallocation of property rarely seriously threatens either (except perhaps in conditions of severe inequality.) I'd thus be inclined to protect privacy and free speech in constitutions, but not property--except perhaps with respect to eminent domain, just for the sake of ensuring the non-arbitrary application of whatever property rules exist.

(except perhaps in conditions of severe inequality.)

There are many situations like this. There are also many situations of severe statism such as the 'communist' governments of Eastern Europe. I think it can be a pretty important right.

There are many situations like this.

I would not be opposed to constitutional restrictions on wealth inequality to ensure democratic health. Nor would I be opposed to constitutional guarantees of provision for basic needs so as to protect individual freedom.

I'm not sure that would make the libertarians much happier, though. ;)

There are also many situations of severe statism such as the 'communist' governments of Eastern Europe.

But which fundamental rights did the system of property in such states infringe (as opposed to other aspects of the regime)? And to what degree is the example applicable to democratic constitutional societies?

I think we are talking about income tax.
In the US roads are paid for mostly by gasoline Tax.
Schools are paid by property tax. the Amount from the state depends on the state, but my state doesn't have income tax so that's mostly sales tax. Funny how most of the examples people use for services are paid by means other then income tax

Tax evasion is not only an income tax problem. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#Tax_compliance_and_evasion)

FairTax opponents state that compliance decreases when taxes are not automatically withheld from citizens, and that massive tax evasion could result by collecting at just one point in the economic system.[35] Compliance rates can also fall when taxed entities, rather than a third party, self-report their tax liability. For example, ordinary personal income taxes can be automatically withheld and are reported to the government by a third party. Taxes without withholding and with self-reporting, such as the FairTax, can see higher evasion rates. In other countries, similar VAT taxes have an average evasion rate of 20%.[33] Economist Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service found studies showing that evasion rates of sales taxes are often above 10%, even when the sales tax rate is in the single digits.[84] Tax publications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF, and Brookings Institution have suggested that the upper limit for a sales tax is about 10% before incentives for evasion become too great to control.[35] According to the GAO, 80% of state tax officials opposed a national sales tax as an intrusion on their tax base.[35]

Normally the reason people feel they are justified in avoiding taxes is because they feel the government is spending too much money for no reason.

Do you have a source for this? Normally people, IMO, feel they are justified in avoiding taxes because they like having more money.

Really hard to illegally avoid non income tax. Not like you can hide your house to avoid property tax, And the only way to avoid gas and sales tax illegally is to steal.

To evade sales and gas taxes all a business has to do is report fewer sales than actually happened and keep the rest. See, not hard at all.

A lot of people feel the wanton spending is detrimental to the economy. As are the Taxes themselves. In which case the avoidance of taxes could be seen as an attempt to minimize the damage done by poor government policy, and hope the government will change the policy because it feels the money is not their to spend.

:rolleyes:

In this case, I disagree. Your suggestion of punitive tarrifs would certainly involve the entire import/expor market, but is essentially entirely unrelated to the market you want to change. However, most Swiss trade is with the European Union, which within the framework of the Swiss agreements with the EU the WTO really can't do much about (it would be illegal for the EU states to violate the EU-Swiss agreements), though for that matter, I was under the impression that most swiss trading was in terms of trade of services which generally can't be tariffed anyway, with major material exports being chemical and medicinal in nature (the latter being something no sane nation would ever place a tariff on).

I agree with Greed because Swiss law does NOT consider tax evasion a crime or wrong. To get the Swiss to stop aiding tax evasion you will have to apply coercive pressure to abrogate their sovereign decision. Because of this, I am with Greed in saying that the WTO would likely side with the Swiss on such a measure, and would never make it WTO policy to attempt to coercively meddle in the sovereign legal affairs of a country. It's a precedent no nation would ever want to set (the US, for example certainly doesn't want the WTO meddling with its sovereign laws regarding taxes, despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the developped world and arguably the most assinine system).

In trade negotiations the intended market that one wishes to change is hardly the only relevant market. The EU wishes to combat the US's steel tarriff increases? It doesn't only increase its tariffs on steel as well it targets markets A, B, C that rely on exports to the EU, particularly if A,B, and C are particularly influential special interest groups in the districts on key congressmen.

The WTO was/is not being discussed as a vehicle to change Switzerland's banking laws. Trade barriers were. The WTO mediates trade negotiations and trade wars.

Tax day is coming up for Americans on April 15th. Question that I have is if a person does everything in their power legal or not to avoid paying taxes is it immoral? Examples would be to make up deductions that really are not accurate. Paying cash for a car and reporting the sales as less than what you really paid for it. The other is to avoid sales taxes by actually shopping in a state/province that has a much lower sales tax. There are many different variations of the tax dodge and I could go on and on. Do you look at Federal tax dodging different than state/provincial or local tax dodging?

How say you.... Discuss.

Well, I work for the IRS, so take this with a grain of salt...

Avoiding taxes in general is immoral. People who claim that taxes are wrong and they shouldn't have to pay them always try to make it out to be some sort of "rugged individualist" campaign. This is nonsense. Even outlaw biker clubs (the most ruggedly individualistic people out there) will beat the shit out of you if you don't pay your membership dues.

Taxes are your membership dues for belonging to a club called the USA (or whatever country you're from.)

However, I do not believe that the tax code is always fair. The tax code did away with income averaging in the 80's. I think this is unfair. It makes sense that the more you make the more you pay, but if an individual has a sudden windfall one year (e.g. sell some land they inherit) it doesn't make sense to treat that person as making $300,000 per year if they only made it that one year. They should get the same benefit that corporations get. If a corporation takes a loss one year and makes a fortune another year they get to average it out.

If you make $20k per year and then somehow get $300 another then your average should be treated as $113,333 (340,000/3) for each of the last 3 years, if you so choose.

Also, deductions. If you win a car in a contest then you are taxed on the sticker price. If you donate a car then you claim a deduction based on what it can be, or is, sold for (there was some controversy on this last I checked, it may not be that way now).

Prizes should be taxed based on what you can sell them for, not what the government thinks they're worth retail. This shouldn't apply to tangible objects that are received as part of a compensation package, nor obviously, to money won as a prize, but if you win a prize that counts as taxable, there should not exist the possibility that selling the object would not cover the tax liability it produces (as may happen with a car).

Canceled debt "income":If you owe your credit card company $5,000 and they agree to drop the whole thing if you give them $2,000 (because it will cost them more than that to have a collection agent get it out of you) then the IRS says that they gave you $3,000. But there's nothing to keep the credit card company from cranking up the interest and fees before they cancel the debt (they get to write off as a loss whatever they "forgive.")

Such canceled debt should only be counted as income based on what the principle is. The fees and interest shouldn't count.

And foreclosure. If you lose your house and it's worth less than you owe on it the IRS counts the difference as income. Personally, I don't see why the fact that you took a loss on the house doesn't cover the difference. You didn't gain income, you lost assets. But the IRS doesn't see it that way, and only let it go right now because it's politically difficult to charge people taxes for losing their homes these days. They still maintain the right to. I think that's wrong.

Tax evasion is not only an income tax problem. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#Tax_compliance_and_evasion)



To evade sales and gas taxes all a business has to do is report fewer sales than actually happened and keep the rest. See, not hard at all.



In my state that's pretty hard as the department of agriculture keeps record of how much Gas a station buys and how much they Sell. A mismatch in the records is easy to catch. Though at first they don't assume tax evasion they assume their equipment is broke, which is worse for a business because they call and order the station to shut down its pumps until the department of agriculture can get out and test them for accuracy(about two weeks). From what Ive seen most gas stations will eat more sales tax if need be just to make their books look balanced until they get fix the pumps themselves.

As for proof that not everyone is just greedy.
hard to do as anyone will use any defense they think might work and it is impossible to read minds.
but cases like Vivien Kellems, Walter Gilbert, and Jerome Daly seem to point to tax disobedience on moral grounds.

You know, I find it amusing that people are saying "well you have to pay taxes for roads and public services". Well we do all the time and it usually can't be avoided, it's called a fuel tax. And vehicle registration, and vehicle inspection. All of those feed into transportation services. Same with public transportation, that's a tax as well. Cigarettes, booze, gambling, they're all taxed too. Every time you purchase something, 99% of the time it's taxed in some way shape or form.

On the other hand, income tax is a load of shit and should be avoided at any cost. My opinion anyway.

So why not get rid of income tax and increase the tax on goods we already pay taxes on by say, 1%?

You know, I find it amusing that people are saying "well you have to pay taxes for roads and public services". Well we do all the time and it usually can't be avoided, it's called a fuel tax. And vehicle registration, and vehicle inspection. All of those feed into transportation services. Same with public transportation, that's a tax as well. Cigarettes, booze, gambling, they're all taxed too. Every time you purchase something, 99% of the time it's taxed in some way shape or form.

On the other hand, income tax is a load of shit and should be avoided at any cost. My opinion anyway.

So why not get rid of income tax and increase the tax on goods we already pay taxes on by say, 1%?

Police? military? firemen?

So why not get rid of income tax and increase the tax on goods we already pay taxes on by say, 1%?

I support this measure 110%.

Police? military? firemen?

I think some states already have a 911 tax for that. And the military is already overfunded, and too large, unless we're going to either:

A) Start a large amount of small wars with helpless countries that need to be occupied

or

B) Invade the EU, China, or NK.

And don't forget that the Income tax isn't the only Federal tax. Tariffs are a good example.

Police? military? firemen?

Well around here the firemen are supported by local taxes, and police are supported by DOT mostly, which gets revenue from transportation taxes. Not to mention tickets and the like that supplies money for police, ambulance, DOT; basically anything that has to do with transportation.

I don't support the government's use of the military (overseas bases and the wars) so therefore I don't support paying the federal government's tax.

*EDIT* I should also note that no, I don't really use any federal services that I can think of. Another reason why I don't support federal income tax.

I believe that if you plan on using the federal system, then you should have to pay into the program you plan on using, or fear you may have to use. Of course that idea is full of problems since no one can predict the future.

I think some states already have a 911 tax for that. And the military is already overfunded, and too large, unless we're going to either:

A) Start a large amount of small wars with helpless countries that need to be occupied

or

B) Invade the EU, China, or NK.

I do not know how this "911" tax works; could you explain it?

Sure the military is over funded--it will still need more cash than an extra 1% in sales tax would give it.

I do not know how this "911" tax works; could you explain it?

Sure the military is over funded--it will still need more cash than an extra 1% in sales tax would give it.

Here you pay a tax on your phone bill.

I do not know how this "911" tax works; could you explain it?

We pay a tax to have the 911 system. I believe it's paid through the phone companies and local taxes.

Sure the military is over funded--it will still need more cash than an extra 1% in sales tax would give it.

That's why they need to close down the overseas bases and worry about protecting just our country. Those bases cost A LOT of money.

I do not know how this "911" tax works; could you explain it?

Sure the military is over funded--it will still need more cash than an extra 1% in sales tax would give it.

You're right.

So shrink the military. Drastically.

What is the enhanced 911 tax?
It is a monthly tax on switched access (hard) lines and radio access (wireless telephone numbers) lines.
Apparently it funds part of the Police Station. And then, think of the local taxes, like my city's recently increased property tax.

You're right.

So shrink the military. Drastically.

:eek: That sounds isolationist!


Apparently it funds part of the Police Station. And then, think of the local taxes, like my city's recently increased property tax.

Yes, they would probably do something.

I still think we need a decently powerful Federal Government, so states will not start dicking-around with civil rights.

:eek: That sounds isolationist!


Shock and horror!:eek2:

Yes, they would probably do something.

I still think we need a decently powerful Federal Government, so states will not start dicking-around with civil rights.
But at the moment, it's way too powerful. And shouldn't that go to the National Guard and not the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, et cetera?

Shock and horror!:eek2:

Out-of-date--like the Constitution. :wink:

But at the moment, it's way too powerful. And shouldn't that go to the National Guard and not the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, et cetera?

Supreme Court, too. And the administration of elections and such.

I just saved $300 by switching to Crime!

Out-of-date--like the Constitution. :wink:

:p

Supreme Court, too.
:confused:

I have yet to see any members of the Surpreme court ride in via Helicopter or Jeep and assist in a natural disaster, or help put down a riot.

Although that would be fucking awesome.:tongue:

And the administration of elections and such.
:confused:

I just saved 50,000 dollars by switching to allodial title.

I just saved 50,000 dollars by switching to allodial title.

I just saved 10 cents by switching to Geico!

I just saved 10 cents by switching to Geico!

Too bad my state is the only one with allodial title

They aren't sadistic. It's just business.

If you can't be bothered to find out how money works

I am trying to find out how your reasoning works. Not quite the same thing, since you implied some moral purpose, namely, sticking it to the 'average American' for the sake of it being 'bad' for them.

, then yes, you are part of the problem

My ass. You're turning this into a self-righteous ad hominem smear of anyone who even disagrees with you on any point, and it's not working any more than a 911 "Truther" telling me that my disagreement means I'm a "shill" for the ebil gubment.

. None of it is half assed.

Just you, then.

Were you screaming from the rooftops when Timmy transferred the Maiden Lane 'assets' to the treasury? No. You weren't.

Does that have -anything- to do with what I've said? No. It doesn't.

In fact, you don't even know what I am talking about.

I know what you're conspicuously [i]not talking about; namely, your claim that because it would be "not bad" for the "Average American," "therefore it won't happen."

So don't accuse me of anything.

I'll accuse you of making a claim you couldn't be bothered to defend or even explain, and I am right to do so.

Too bad my state is the only one with allodial title

The State of Insanity? :p

:confused:

I have yet to see any members of the Surpreme court ride in via Helicopter or Jeep and assist in a natural disaster, or help put down a riot.

Although that would be fucking awesome.:tongue:

They have to decide cases in which civil rights are at stake.

:confused:

Candidates need money to run, and I think anyone who passes a Government created-test should be given a good deal of campaign money, so the rich stop monopolizing power.

The State of Insanity? :p

Don't dis allodial title. Means you don't owe property tax and the land can never be taken away from you.

up to you.

as long as you're willing to take the consequences when caught... do whatever you want.

They have to decide cases in which civil rights are at stake.


Confused by the position of the sentence in the post. Thanks for clearing that up. Of course, but the Supreme Court isn't that expensive.

Candidates need money to run, and I think anyone who passes a Government created-test should be given a good deal of campaign money, so the rich stop monopolizing power.
I disagree with the middle part. The Rich can't monopolize power anymore. Think about it, how much money did Obama use to fund his campaign? Now, guess how much of it was his personal money? And there's already a limit on donations, from both organizations and individuals, so, meh.

Confused by the position of the sentence in the post. Thanks for clearing that up. Of course, but the Supreme Court isn't that expensive.

Not so much, I suppose.

I disagree with the middle part. The Rich can't monopolize power anymore. Think about it, how much money did Obama use to fund his campaign? Now, guess how much of it was his personal money? And there's already a limit on donations, from both organizations and individuals, so, meh.

A gurantee that if Obama did not start his political career fairly wealthy (or knowing persons who were), he would never had been elected President. Just coming close to running for a nomination requires a fortune. State political offices cost several hundred thousand, and Governorship requires millions.

Not so much, I suppose.



A gurantee that if Obama did not start his political career fairly wealthy (or knowing persons who were), he would never had been elected President. Just coming close to running for a nomination requires a fortune. State political offices cost several hundred thousand, and Governorship requires millions.
Indeed. Yet I doubt even he funded those himself. His party probably threw in some money, local supporters, and the sort. I have yet to see any meaningful data that suggests that wealth is a prerequisite to attaining power in an election-fueled Democratic Republic as this.

However, the way that said people attain money is usually accompanied by some amount of fame, and I believe that's how they get elected.

Indeed. Yet I doubt even he funded those himself. His party probably threw in some money, local supporters, and the sort.

I am supposing he had a lot of wealthy friends, including high-ranking members of his party.

I have yet to see any meaningful data that suggests that wealth is a prerequisite to attaining power in an election-fueled Democratic Republic as this.

According to Politics for Dummies, it is impossible to even attempt to attain a decent political office without a considerable amount of money at one's disposal. A few hundred thousand for small offices, like Congressman, and several million for anything greater.

However, the way that said people attain money is usually accompanied by some amount of fame, and I believe that's how they get elected.

Yes, so essentially an actor can beat someone well studied in politics because the actor can gain money more easily.

I am supposing he had a lot of wealthy friends, including high-ranking members of his party.

Most likely.

According to Politics for Dummies, it is impossible to even attempt to attain a decent political office without a considerable amount of money at one's disposal. A few hundred thousand for small offices, like Congressman, and several million for anything greater.

And that money comes from...

Yes, so essentially an actor can beat someone well studied in politics because the actor can gain money more easily.
See: Reagan, The Governorator.:p

Most likely.

It is a like a large network that will not let others in.


And that money comes from...

The super-wealthy, generally, though in Obama's case he received many middle-class donations. He still needed wealth before he was even a Senator.

See: Reagan, The Governorator.:p

Exactly.

It is a like a large network that will not let others in.
Mmm. I disagree. Since the limits on donations, it's more important, financially, to have large amounts of middle-upper middle class supporters than just a few big ones. Or is it just Federal Elections that have such strict limits?

The super-wealthy, generally, though in Obama's case he received many middle-class donations. He still needed wealth before he was even a Senator.

See above, and correct me if I'm wrong.

Exactly.
Eh, it's how the Human mind works. Recognition.

Yes, so essentially an actor can beat someone well studied in politics because the actor can gain money more easily.
Which is a good thing. Someone with a degree in political studies is guaranteed not to be a good president. Why? Because he has been indoctrinated by his political studies, to use his power in the traditional way. And that traditional way is to use it to grab more power and maintain it.
At best he can be an okay president, forgotten after his two terms, but more likely he'll be a crap president.

On the other hand, someone who comes into politics not out of greed for power, but out of desire to follow up on his ideals...
See: Reagan, The Governorator.:p
- The best president US had in the 20th century was an actor.

- The best president US had in the 20th century was an actor.
Now I'm sure Calvin Coolidge, like the rest of us, did a play or two back in his school days, but most people have the common decency not to rub it in his face.

Now I'm sure Calvin Coolidge, like the rest of us, did a play or two back in his school days, but most people have the common decency not to rub it in his face.
That's the second best.

But if not for these two guys, US by now would be a fascist street-camera-watched, RFID-carrying emerging IngSoc state like UK.

Which is a good thing. Someone with a degree in political studies is guaranteed not to be a good president. Why? Because he has been indoctrinated by his political studies, to use his power in the traditional way. And that traditional way is to use it to grab more power and maintain it.
At best he can be an okay president, forgotten after his two terms, but more likely he'll be a crap president.

I use Nixon as an example...and he was one of the few middle-class Presidents we ever elected. He radically cut spending; he ended the draft; he improved racial integration; he negotiated SALT I; he made China an ally; he proposed FAP; he ended the Vietnam War.


On the other hand, someone who comes into politics not out of greed for power, but out of desire to follow up on his ideals...

- The best president US had in the 20th century was an actor.

:tongue: So what you are telling me, is that someone who comes into politics for ideological reasons will end-up cutting aid to the poor, while tripling the debt, cocking-up the economy, and claiming a distaste for "long hours"?

No, the best leaders in history are the ones who studied their chosen professions.

That's the second best.

But if not for these two guys, US by now would be a fascist street-camera-watched, RFID-carrying emerging IngSoc state like UK.

...

*sigh*

Mmm. I disagree. Since the limits on donations, it's more important, financially, to have large amounts of middle-upper middle class supporters than just a few big ones. Or is it just Federal Elections that have such strict limits?

Presidential campaigns do have limits. It is still impossible to even come close to running without a large "stake", which is nearly always acquired via friends.

See above, and correct me if I'm wrong.

You are. You are confusing running with actually getting into the game.

Eh, it's how the Human mind works. Recognition.

Sure. that is natural. It still should not provide a financial advantage.

I use Nixon as an example...and he was one of the few middle-class Presidents we ever elected. He radically cut spending; he ended the draft; he improved racial integration; he negotiated SALT I; he made China an ally; he proposed FAP; he ended the Vietnam War.

And look what they did to him, they ran him out of office for something most presidents do lie to protect a subordinate. If Nixon had been Machiavellian enough to fire them and order the justice department to investigate them(while giving them enough time to flee the country) this never would have happened.


:tongue: So what you are telling me, is that someone who comes into politics for ideological reasons will end-up cutting aid to the poor, while tripling the debt, cocking-up the economy, and claiming a distaste for "long hours"?

No, the best leaders in history are the ones who studied their chosen professions.

Don't forget producing the fastest rates of growth since WWII. And the Debt is more complicated then that, if the interest rates on bonds average less growth rates(and hence revenue) it is a source of income as it becomes easier to pay off the Debt once the term is due. He got away with this of course because he created demand for the dollar when he ended the inflation of the 70's.

That's the second best.

But if not for these two guys, US by now would be a fascist street-camera-watched, RFID-carrying emerging IngSoc state like UK.

I believe you are wrong, but calling the UK an "IngSoc state" is a pardonable hyperbole. :tongue:

And look what they did to him, they ran him out of office for something most presidents do lie to protect a subordinate. If Nixon had been Machiavellian enough to fire them and order the justice department to investigate them(while giving them enough time to flee the country) this never would have happened.

Yes. But everybody makes mistakes.

Don't forget producing the fastest rates of growth since WWII. And the Debt is more complicated then that, if the interest rates on bonds average less growth rates(and hence revenue) it is a source of income as it becomes easier to pay off the Debt once the term is due. He got away with this of course because he created demand for the dollar when he ended the inflation of the 70's.

If I recall, he had this silly notion (later called "Reaganomics") that if we drastically cut taxes, it would widen the tax base and we would have more revenue. When he noticed that it just tripled the debt, he said: "disappointing".

A while later Clinton emerges, and ignores the Reaganomics idea. And look! he improved the economy and created a surplus in Government revenue!

If I recall, he had this silly notion (later called "Reaganomics") that if we drastically cut taxes, it would widen the tax base and we would have more revenue. When he noticed that it just tripled the debt, he said: "disappointing".

But the Debt was a revenue. It was growing slower then the Economy. think of it like this. If you borrow 1% of your income at a 1% rate but you get a raise every year at 3%. The net result is you have more goods and services then you would have had if you had not borrowed the money.

Then a while later Clinton emerges, and ignores the Reaganomics idea. And look! he improved the economy and created a surplus in Government revenue!

Clinton didn't really end the debt so much as the republican congress wouldn't let him spend money on social programs, And Clinton wouldn't go to a war(something republicans spend money on).
Actually was disappointed in that he could have had a higher interest rate(less inflation more investment) and sold more bonds as the demand for US bonds abroad was there.

But the Debt was a revenue. It was growing slower then the Economy. think of it like this. If you borrow 1% of your income at a 1% rate but you get a raise every year at 3%. The net result is you have more goods and services then you would have had if you had not borrowed the money.

But it failed to pay for the debt....

Clinton didn't really end the debt so much as the republican congress wouldn't let him spend money on social programs, And Clinton wouldn't go to a war(something republicans spend money on).

Bingo! Reagan spent most of the tax-payer's money on the military, and I do not support that.

Actually was disappointed in that he could have had a higher interest rate(less inflation more investment) and sold more bonds as the demand for US bonds abroad was there.

I still feel that he did better than Reagan.

But it failed to pay for the debt....

The deficits incurred form the 1980's until just about now(when the Chinese are planning to stop purchasing our debt) was a good debt. Because the interest rates were so low on the bonds that the use of debt income would represent a net decrease in tax burden for the purchase of these goods and services.

Bingo! Reagan spent most of the tax-payer's money on the military, and I do not support that.

Iraq war 100 billion a year.
National health care 100 billion a year.
Seems if Clinton had his way we would have been in the same Debt boat as now just earlier.


I still feel that he did better than Reagan.
They performed similarly. I think Reagan's average growth rate was 3.2%and Clinton's was 3.3 or 3.4%. The difference was Reagan started with a much worse economy.

The deficits incurred form the 1980's until just about now(when the Chinese are planning to stop purchasing our debt) was a good debt. Because the interest rates were so low on the bonds that the use of debt income would represent a net decrease in tax burden for the purchase of these goods and services.

But the spending should have still been cut.

Iraq war 100 billion a year.
National health care 100 billion a year.
Seems if Clinton had his way we would have been in the same Debt boat as now just earlier.


Meh, so Clinton is kind of an idiot too. Still, I would prefer the money spent on health care to war.

They performed similarly. I think Reagan's average growth rate was 3.2%and Clinton's was 3.3 or 3.4%. The difference was Reagan started with a much worse economy.

And his growth cost the Government a lot more than Clinton's did.

The proper answer is, of course, income taxation is immoral. The solution is also easy. Repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax with a national retail sales tax, as outlined in the FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296)

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

If you visit the site, sign the petition.

But the spending should have still been cut.

Why in essence it was free money ? People wanted dollars so bad they were willing to buy bonds at rates that a savings account would have out performed.


Meh, so Clinton is kind of an idiot too. Still, I would prefer the money spent on health care to war.

If the first gulf war had happened under Clinton it would not have gone so smoothly. Then we would have had oil quadruple in price in the 1990's rather then 2004.

And his growth cost the Government a lot more than Clinton's did.

In bonds the interest rates were so low we could have put them in a savings account and made profit paying them back. Clinton was a fool not to take the bonds while the demand was there for them. Instead he raised my Taxes and lower the interest rates, Setting the initial steps for the current finical crisis.

And his growth cost the Government a lot more than Clinton's did.
You mean as in shrinking the government?

The debt part has already been explained. Debt is OK when it's easily paid off.

You mean as in shrinking the government?

The debt part has already been explained. Debt is OK when it's easily paid off.

Except...it has yet to be paid-off.

Why in essence it was free money ? People wanted dollars so bad they were willing to buy bonds at rates that a savings account would have out performed.

But the Government never invested the money in a "savings account".

If the first gulf war had happened under Clinton it would not have gone so smoothly. Then we would have had oil quadruple in price in the 1990's rather then 2004.

Source?


In bonds the interest rates were so low we could have put them in a savings account and made profit paying them back.

Yet we did not.

Clinton was a fool not to take the bonds while the demand was there for them. Instead he raised my Taxes and lower the interest rates, Setting the initial steps for the current finical crisis.

He made a surplus, so I am going to commend more than the guy who created a debt we are still paying back. I fail to see how Clinton is responsible for our current mess, which I believe is caused by debt.

Except...it has yet to be paid-off.

Its a bond it takes 20 to 30 years to mature. Which is why fiscal management right now is important. Because in the next few years the bonds sold during Reagan come due, and if the world is going to abandon the dollar it will be then.

Its a bond it takes 20 to 30 years to mature. Which is why fiscal management right now is important. Because in the next few years the bonds sold during Reagan come due, and if the world is going to abandon the dollar it will be then.

So...if the world abandons the Dollar, would that not be Reagan's fault for buying all those bonds (partailly Obama's too, for acting like such an ass)?

So...if the world abandons the Dollar, would that not be Reagan's fault for buying all those bonds (partailly Obama's too, for acting like such an ass)?

Problem is what is the world going to replace it with? The Euro? It's sucking ass right now too.

Problem is what is the world going to replace it with? The Euro? It's sucking ass right now too.

http://www.dhunplugged.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/gold-bars-2.jpg

But the Government never invested the money in a "savings account".

No we invested it in the economy, Not as effective as private spending and investment but since we didn't take it from taxes its okay.

Source?

OPEC records prior to the Gulf war. Saddam Wanted the prices of oil raised and was particularly blaming Kuwait for the low price of oil. S a fairly easy extrapolation that his motivation for invading was to Raise the price of oil.
Or you mean the military under Clinton fairing worse off ? I less funded and equipped military tends to perform poorer in the field.


Yet we did not.



He made a surplus, so I am going to commend more than the guy who created a debt we are still paying back. I fail to see how Clinton is responsible for our current mess, which I believe is caused by debt.

Think of it like this. You borrow 10% of your purchasing power on a 30 year fixed rate loan(a bond). The interest rate on the bond is 1% so in 30years you owe 30% more then what you borrowed.
However your income goes up 3% per year. This means your ability to pay the loan back has increased by 90%. Turns a loan worth 10% of your purchasing power into a repayment worth 4% of your purchasing power.
It is silly not to take the loan because the 10% of your purchasing power borrowed will be worth more then the 4% of the repayment.

It is free money.

So...if the world abandons the Dollar, would that not be Reagan's fault for buying all those bonds (partailly Obama's too, for acting like such an ass)?

No, because the bonds are the reason he world went to the dollar. If we had not distributed those bonds the world would have went to gold or waited for the Euro.
The reason we might lose status as the trade medium of the world is because Clinton, W's, and Obama have kept interest rates low and failed to properly manage the currency.

Problem is what is the world going to replace it with? The Euro? It's sucking ass right now too.

According to China, theyre going to make a whole new world currency...

The Worldo I suppose, lol...

According to China, theyre going to make a whole new world currency...

The Worldo I suppose, lol...

Where's Worldo ???

I could see books with pictures of currency from all over and I have to pick out the one that is the world's currency.

No we invested it in the economy, Not as effective as private spending and investment but since we didn't take it from taxes its okay.

It did not pay-off like it should have.

OPEC records prior to the Gulf war. Saddam Wanted the prices of oil raised and was particularly blaming Kuwait for the low price of oil. S a fairly easy extrapolation that his motivation for invading was to Raise the price of oil.

Okay. How would that have been Clinton's fault?

Or you mean the military under Clinton fairing worse off ? I less funded and equipped military tends to perform poorer in the field.


I believe our military still had enough funding, and that the situation would not have been as bad as you portrayed it.

Think of it like this. You borrow 10% of your purchasing power on a 30 year fixed rate loan(a bond). The interest rate on the bond is 1% so in 30years you owe 30% more then what you borrowed.
However your income goes up 3% per year.

The Government's income has been going-up 3% each year, factoring in inflation? Source?

This means your ability to pay the loan back has increased by 90%. Turns a loan worth 10% of your purchasing power into a repayment worth 4% of your purchasing power.
It is silly not to take the loan because the 10% of your purchasing power borrowed will be worth more then the 4% of the repayment.

It is free money.

There is no such thing. Money always has to come from somewhere.

*points guns at you*
Whats so wrong bout TEXAS.

Nothing except Texans :p

We should just take a tip from our more primitive Galactic Neighbors, and use Teeth, its the most fair currency in the world...

We should just take a tip from our more primitive Galactic Neighbors, and use Teeth, its the most fair currency in the world...

Teef. :wink:

Teef. :wink:
Nah, THESE are teef:
http://tss.dumpshock.com/html/tss-11/orksteef.gif

Humans have teeth:
http://static.flickr.com/3415/3345879326_f0e6ca333e.jpg

It did not pay-off like it should have.

3.2% economic growth a year. Seem to have to me.
Actually the world would have switched to the Yen and Japan would have skipped out on its 10 year recession.

Okay. How would that have been Clinton's fault?

I believe our military still had enough funding, and that the situation would not have been as bad as you portrayed it.

We are talking a hypothetical if Clinton had been elected in 84' or 88' and cut military spending. Then yes a lesser performance by the military would have been his fault. The ability to move an army half way around the world, then destroy a million man army within 100 hours. Where as the army we sent into Bosnia and Somali under Clinton were incapable of repeating that performance.


The Government's income has been going-up 3% each year, factoring in inflation? Source?

A little more complicated then that.
The economy grew 3% per year from 82' until 01'. If the tax rates had been stable then yes revenues would have grown 3% per year. However congressmen always fiddle with exemptions and the like, and of course rates were raised under Bush Sr. and Clinton. Where as they were lowered under Bush Jr.
you can average it out yourself if you like
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg


There is no such thing. Money always has to come from somewhere.

Indeed the money comes from other countries. The reason we get away with it is because they are not wanting US bonds as investments, instead they want US bonds as Foreign exchange. In essence they pay us for a service of providing stable money.

In my state that's pretty hard as the department of agriculture keeps record of how much Gas a station buys and how much they Sell. A mismatch in the records is easy to catch. Though at first they don't assume tax evasion they assume their equipment is broke, which is worse for a business because they call and order the station to shut down its pumps until the department of agriculture can get out and test them for accuracy(about two weeks). From what Ive seen most gas stations will eat more sales tax if need be just to make their books look balanced until they get fix the pumps themselves.

So basically the government has big brother monitoring all gas stations? Hmmm.... maybe if the government did the same with all sources of income and monitoring of cunsumption tax evasion would be much less prevalent.

As for proof that not everyone is just greedy.
hard to do as anyone will use any defense they think might work and it is impossible to read minds.
but cases like Vivien Kellems, Walter Gilbert, and Jerome Daly seem to point to tax disobedience on moral grounds.

I asked for proof that most tax evasion is because of moral concerns, which is what you claimed.

The proper answer is, of course, income taxation is immoral. The solution is also easy. Repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax with a national retail sales tax, as outlined in the FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296)

The so called FairTax is a tax that soaks the middle class at the benefit of the wealthy, would require a huge amount of government monitoring to get rid of the rampant tax evasion that a 23% sales tax would cause, and has no chance of passing.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Segomo2/bison_money.jpg

The so called FairTax is a tax that soaks the middle class at the benefit of the wealthy, would require a huge amount of government monitoring to get rid of the rampant tax evasion that a 23% sales tax would cause, and has no chance of passing.
I'll agree that it has no chance of passing while we continue to elect the same old hacks that continue to misspend our money. But that's it.

So basically the government has big brother monitoring all gas stations? Hmmm.... maybe if the government did the same with all sources of income and monitoring of cunsumption tax evasion would be much less prevalent.

Its easy to do with gasoline just follow from the refineries to the pump. Also the people want ti out of fear they are being scammed on the weights and measures. Something that can readily be sold at a garage sale is a lot harder to impose a tax on.
Though with Income tax they are pretty big brother about it, anywhere it is cost effective to do so. Hence the federal withholding from paychecks.


I asked for proof that most tax evasion is because of moral concerns, which is what you claimed.
I likely meant Many, but I can still argue who does not rationalize their actions?

I'll agree that it has no chance of passing while we continue to elect the same old hacks that continue to misspend our money. But that's it.

The same old hacks get elected because of the system of how canidates are selected and elected. How do we change the system? Largely through the system. A Catch-22.

Its easy to do with gasoline just follow from the refineries to the pump. Also the people want ti out of fear they are being scammed on the weights and measures. Something that can readily be sold at a garage sale is a lot harder to impose a tax on.
Though with Income tax they are pretty big brother about it, anywhere it is cost effective to do so. Hence the federal withholding from paychecks.

True. Let's just say that when tax evasion is easier tax evasion is more likely to happen.


I likely meant Many,

Ah.

but I can still argue who does not rationalize their actions?

True. An executive who dodges taxes while taking TARP funds could say he did both for moral reasons yes?

True. Let's just say that when tax evasion is easier tax evasion is more likely to happen.

But at the same time enforcement cost more money.
If you spend 100 billion dollars on enforcement to get 20 billion dollars in extra revenue that is bad. It would also become even worse as the now jailed worker is not longer be a productive member of society.


True. An executive who dodges taxes while taking TARP funds could say he did both for moral reasons yes?

Depends on where you draw the line between greed and morals.
He likely feels it is his money, as he is the one who earned it. I consider that morals, you likely consider that greed.

But at the same time enforcement cost more money.
If you spend 100 billion dollars on enforcement to get 20 billion dollars in extra revenue that is bad. It would also become even worse as the now jailed worker is not longer be a productive member of society.

Enforcement costs have been going down, generally, since the 1800s. Also, if jailing one guy costs 1.2 million but saves 4.8 million from because of fewer tax evasions then its a net gain to society.


Depends on where you draw the line between greed and morals.
He likely feels it is his money, as he is the one who earned it. I consider that morals, you likely consider that greed.

And he likely finds the TARP funds are moral because they are necessary, in his opinion, to save the financial system and because he thinks he worked hard at his job and deserves to keep it with the income he's accustomed to. Of course the average tax payer would call it greed.

Enforcement costs have been going down, generally, since the 1800s. Also, if jailing one guy costs 1.2 million but saves 4.8 million from because of fewer tax evasions then its a net gain to society.

The enforcement cost increase from the 1800's is tied to the increase in number and amount of taxes.
It is rather difficult for someone for someone earning 1.2 million a year to be depriving the federal government of 4.8 million a year. Almost jailing someone deprives society of more then the government can ever squeeze out of them.


And he likely finds the TARP funds are moral because they are necessary, in his opinion, to save the financial system and because he thinks he worked hard at his job and deserves to keep it with the income he's accustomed to. Of course the average tax payer would call it greed.
Its just a matter of going market rate, if more people did what they did they would be paid less.

The enforcement cost increase from the 1800's is tied to the increase in number and amount of taxes.

But they've decreased as a percentage of tax receipts. So back in the 1800s 20% tax receipts were eaten up through the cost of collecting and enforcing taxes. Now its more like 3-6%.

It is rather difficult for someone for someone earning 1.2 million a year to be depriving the federal government of 4.8 million a year. Almost jailing someone deprives society of more then the government can ever squeeze out of them.

No. It changes the behavior of others. That one person jailed will decrease the number of tax evaders. If you slap the wrists of tax evaders you get more tax evaders given the few incentives they have to obey the law.

Its just a matter of going market rate, if more people did what they did they would be paid less.

If more people got government handouts they'd get more money? True.

But they've decreased as a percentage of tax receipts. So back in the 1800s 20% tax receipts was the cost of collecting and enforcing the tax. Now its more like 3-6%.
which can also be chalked up to increases in technology. And population growth. Tax in the early 19th century was largely tariffs pretty easy to pick a back woods area and smuggles goods in and pretty expensive to patrol a coast line. Where as now a Satellite catches them much more cheaply.


No. It changes the behavior of others. That one person jailed will decrease the number of tax evaders.

We have been jailing tax evaders for how long ?
Deterrence rarely works. Just like the Death penalty, I doubt anyone thinks they will be caught.



If more people got government handouts they'd get more money? True.

CEOs who are in bailed out companies are in the minority. The bailouts should not have happened, that said if the government for what ever stupid reason decides to bail out companies honoring their contracts is to be expected.
Though this is really for another thread completely.

which can also be chalked up to increases in technology. And population growth. Tax in the early 19th century was largely tariffs pretty easy to pick a back woods area and smuggles goods in and pretty expensive to patrol a coast line. Where as now a Satellite catches them much more cheaply.

There are numerous reasons why tax collecting is more efficient, but they are unimportant. What is important is that given tax collection and enforcement is more efficient its less likely that so much money would be spent for negative returns.


We have been jailing tax evaders for how long ?

Since you mentioned it in your last reply, I assume.

Deterrence rarely works. Just like the Death penalty, I doubt anyone thinks they will be caught.

The whole legal system works mostly on deterrence, at least as the means of last resort. People who break the law are fined or jailed. Incentives, of which deterrents/sticks are a part of, do work.

CEOs who are in bailed out companies are in the minority. The bailouts should not have happened, that said if the government for what ever stupid reason decides to bail out companies honoring their contracts is to be expected.
Though this is really for another thread completely.

The hypothetical CEO being discussed was one who was bailed out. Taxing the bonuses was a way to restore some legitimacy of the TARP funds, ya know the bailout money.government handout money. To bitch about having some of your corporate welfare taken away is unlikely to gain much sympathy.