«12. . .121122123124125126127. . .271272»
Can't wait to get lit in Belize
"Urban Dictionary definition of "lit" is, "The state of being so intoxicated (regardless of the intoxicating agent) that all the person can do is smile, so that they look lit up like a light.""
That's what I thought it meant. Long way to go just to get lit. Hope there is more to Belize than just booze (or other intoxicating substances).
I've got another question. To what extent do libertarians believe that tax avoidance (as in the Panama leaks) by big companies is morally justifiable? One could make the argument that capitalism brings opportunity and those who succeed have a right to protect their money. But others argue that it's immoral to place the taxpaying burden on the working class and the taxes these companies avoid could be used to benefit society. What do you think?
As a conservative I have no problem with anyone legally avoiding any tax they can. The term "Tax Avoidance" was first used by Franklin D. Roosevelt in a derogatory manner for wealthy people that were using perfectly legal tax deductions and other methods to avoid paying some taxes. The key word here is "legal." Anyone that pays more taxes than they legally owe is a fool. Anyone that runs a company and pays more taxes than they should will be out of business sooner than later.
Tax avoidance is not a bad thing. It is someone that everyone should practice.
As for the morality of placing the tax paying burden on the working class... Let's talk about that. Of the personal income taxes filed in this nation, 50% of the personal federal income tax collected in this nation is paid by the top 5% of earners in this nation. Depending on who you want to believe, somewhere between 44% and 47% of the bottom earners do not pay any federal income tax at all. And roughly one third of those get thousands in direct cash payments in the form of "earned income credits." That is also called a direct transfer of wealth.
Nothing moral about that.
@ Xyanth; thanks for replying. I agree that every business has a responsibility to minimise tax. I do believe it can be argued quite validly that the wealthy have a right to their money. The impression I got from the Panama leaks was that many rich corporations pay next to no tax compared with the rest of society. However, I believe in opportunity and definitely favour the government butting out of the lives of people in their quest for financial freedom. I think freedom and lack of regulation are core libertarian principles.
Your impression may be based in misinformation. Walmart, Conoco, Apple and many other corporations would disagree with your impression.[1][2][3]
Of those that had no tax liability in a given year, it could be their US taxable interests made no money or lost money that year. A great deal is made of the fact that in 2008 or 2009 General Electric paid no US federal taxes. The part the useful idiots leave out is that in those tax years General Electric lost money, primarily due to cash hemorrhaging from the television division (MSNBC in particular), heavy downturns in sales in the domestic home appliance division and settling two hefty lawsuits.
What most people don't get is that it is possible to have a multibillion dollar revenue stream and still lose money. That means no profits and no income tax liability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-paying-most-taxes-174550448.html
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/
[3] Forbes has an extensive list of corporations and what they paid. However, you have to turn off any ad-blocking to get to it so I did not list it here.
Thanks Xyanth. Man, some "Liberals" are so controlling, it's like they think everyone should be free, but only if they do things their way. That's what I like about Libertarians, they favour the government leaving everyone alone. This is especially true in areas such as tax and regulation.
I mean, tax is theft, and is on no constitutional basis, so...
Interesting... Are you saying that the government has no right to take money from its people at all? That could basically mean that everything should be privatised, and everyone and everything should be independent and free from regulation.
A worryingly common view these days.
I'm curious as to why you think that is something to worry about?
To be fair we kind of need taxes so that we can upkeep our military to protect us from attacks and to make sure we have a centralized currency to make trade easier. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the government to have utter control of our lives. I just want it to be there to protect our national and international trading interests for a free global market.
The argument over whether government has any right to tax-and-spend is rather a long way from modern sensibilities.
Today even someone who suggests that government should spend a bit less money is considered "extreme".
That is the real reason for the hatred of Ted Cruz - especially in Big Government New York.
People prefer candidates such as Donald Trump - who offer them their all their the desires of their heart.
And tell them that someone else will pay for it all.
First Book of Samuel - Chapter Eight.
I'll be darned. We have a unanimous poll this time. I'm pretty sure that has not happened before this one.
What does everyone here think of Liberals? I believe the difference between Liberals and Libertarians is great. Liberals favour big government and are controlling to those who don't share their views. It's such hypocrisy really... they claim to have these really great ideas of how you should be free, but what they really mean is you should be free only if you share their ideas. Libertarians on the other hand believe that the government should simply butt out of everyone's lives and leave us the hell alone. Very big difference.
Something like this:
Ask both groups to solve the equation 2+2.
Liberal Response: Call meetings and form committees. Study the problem from all possible liberal positions. Establish a database of possible answer. Exclude all answers that are not completely inclusive of minorities, LGBTQ's and the poor. Make sure the answer is green and has at worse a neutral carbon footprint. After all this, they will come back with the answer "grapefruit" and vigorously attack anyone that disagrees.
Conservative Response: 4
Hello! I'm new to this region, and I'd like so help with the way it works here.
Anyone Being Nice?
Help with what? We're pretty laid back here, mostly discussing real world issues.
As for nice?
Anyone?
Puerto Rico, my heart's devotion.
Let it sink back in the ocean.
Always the hurricanes blowing,
Always the population growing.
And the money owing.
And the sunlight streaming,
And the natives steaming.
—West Side Story, America, Leonard Bernstein & Stephen Sondheim, 1961
Back in 1961, when Messer's Bernstein and Sondheim adapted those lyrics to the movie, they probably had no idea how prophetic those words would be. Today, 55 years later, Puerto Rico is $70 billion in debt and an unfunded pension liability totaling another $44 billion.[1] The island has no real prospects of paying even the interest on any of that debt.
Now, under the heading of "we're from the government and we're here to help" members of congress want to step in to try to "fix it." And that's when the fight broke out. The Governor of Puerto Rico wants to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy. But bond holders do not want that because their debt would be zeroed out.[2]
Things are so screwed up that a Federal Judge seized some of the island's cash to force payment of long over due bills to the mental health vendors working for the Puerto Rico health department. His logic was to protect the "special needs" population on the island. [3]
Clearly this is a mess. My feelings are this is just preview of what is coming. My bet is that California or New York is going to be next. What ever congress does will set a non-binding precedent. When states start going down the crapper, they will point to what ever congress does to (or for) Puerto Rico and insist on at least the same, if not better treatment as they are full fledged states.
If someone was to leave you in charge, what would you do about Puerto Rico? The new poll is up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-puertorico-debt-congress-idUSKCN0WW015
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/plan-fix-puerto-rico-bashed-all-sides-n548096
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/federal-judge-seizes-puerto-rico-govt-funds-amid-38609409
I think a lot of governments will experience severe financial problems in the near future and will have to make big cuts. If we have a liberal government they will be continually in denial about this... But I think a conservative/libertarian government will be more prepared to face the reality.
Okay, Then, time for business, who wants to go to Belize with me.
Coercion, namely the violent expropriation of property, is a necessary aspect of any functional large-scale civilisation.
We need taxation to secure the borders to prevent unwanted individuals from enter the nation, maintain a military and a police force to protect the nation and enforce law and order, for some sort of dispute resolution, to manage public infrastructure and to provide any other public services which may be of use.
Taxes are the price you pay for civilisation.
«12. . .121122123124125126127. . .271272»
Advertisement
