Votes dem, moves money offshore. Does no evil.

Even if you disagree with taxes imo you should still be paying them, almost everyone else is.
Herding.

IMO I would rather a small business moved cash overseas than a large corporation like Google. The small business is more likely to use a greater proportion of that money for new staff in the future whereas a lot of Google's cash will be moving into certain peoples bank accounts (perhaps?).
And then the money dies in their bank accounts right?

Rich people don't invest venture capital, or buy high end goods, or travel, or buy property, or support their families, or give money to universities etc...

The class distinction isn't between small and big.

It's between crony capitalists and everyone else (you guys seriously need to read Das Kapital closely). Google, by and large, doesn't use the power of the state very much, relative to say Apple, to maintain their profits.

Whether people around here like or hate Google, they have managed to become the biggest search engine in the world by offering a better search experience than anyone else.

If Google went away tomorrow, more than 50% of this forum would be out of business.
 


That's how a democracy is supposed to work (notice supposed to).

Nothing personal sixthcutuan, and sorry to derail the thread into another topic entirely:

It floors me that people are so easily deluded and misinformed. The United States of America is not a democracy! We are a Constitutional Republic. In a democracy you have NO RIGHTS AT ALL as they may be overridden at any time at the whim of the majority. In a democracy two wolves and a sheep take a vote on what's for dinner. Our Founders hated the concept of democracy and knew from history that democracy always degenerated into despotism. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even mentions the word "democracy".

The founders of our nation went to great lengths to prevent a democracy from ever taking root in our country (it is nothing more than Mob Rule) Chimpanzee colonies have a more advanced system of government. In our Constitutional Republic we have three coequal branches of government with strictly limited powers. They set up an intricate system of checks and balances so that, when one branch stepped out of line, another branch could step in and say "we don't think so! "The powers delegated to the federal government - Article 1, Section 8 - were "few and defined".

Also - we have a Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights is more accurately a bill of prohibitions on federal power. These rights cannot be voted away either by the people or by their elected representatives.The language of the First and Second Amendments indicates that the rights they protect already existed, and that government cannot infringe these rights, regardless of what the majority says. Again, PROTECTING US FROM A DEMOCRACY!

- First and Second Amendments indicates that the rights they protect already existed, and that government cannot infringe these rights, regardless of what the majority says.

- The Fourth through Eighth Amendments protect the rights of the accused. These rights are not to be surrendered under any circumstances.

- The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. To the Founders, this meant a trial by a fully informed jury. Such a jury was the ultimate check on any bad law.

- The Ninth Amendment protects your right to do things even if other people disapprove.

- The Tenth Amendment forbids Uncle Sam from engaging in any activity that is not expressly authorized elsewhere in the Constitution, regardless of how people may vote.


A constitutional republic is a charter of liberty while a democracy is a recipe for slavery. WE NEED TO PULL OFF OUR BLINDERS AND realize we are being dumbed down to believe our system of government was founded on democracy and it most certainly was not.

When Ben Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention after its work was done, a woman asked him, “….. Sir, what have you given us”. Ben’s response was, “…… a ‘Republic’ ma’am, if you can keep it.”
We aren't doing a very good job of preserving our republic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: music4mic
IMO I would rather a small business moved cash overseas than a large corporation like Google. The small business is more likely to use a greater proportion of that money for new staff in the future whereas a lot of Google's cash will be moving into certain peoples bank accounts (perhaps?).

And then the money dies in their bank accounts right?

Rich people don't invest venture capital...

It is odd that this connection is missed so often on the forum given that every episode of Shark Tank gets its own thread. It is doubly odd given that Google itself was funded early by VCs (Kleiner Perkins, etc.).
 
It floors me that people are so easily deluded and misinformed.
Uh, yeah.

No Treason

The Constitution is simply 4 pieces of paper with no power to bind anyone, to anything. The government knows this, that is why they ignore it.

All of that Founder stuff is mythology. The truth is, without the anti-federalists derailing things at the last moment, there would be no Bill of Rights. That's why they are the first 10 amendments rather than part of the Constitution proper.

As a libertarian governmental structure, the Articles of Confederation were better than the Constitution by almost every measure.
 
Uh, yeah.

No Treason

The Constitution is simply 4 pieces of paper with no power to bind anyone, to anything. The government knows this, that is why they ignore it.

All of that Founder stuff is mythology. The truth is, without the anti-federalists derailing things at the last moment, there would be no Bill of Rights. That's why they are the first 10 amendments rather than part of the Constitution proper.

guerilla,
I don't have the time or the will to argue this with you. I am aware of where you stand on these issues philosophically as is the majority of everyone here.

The problem with America is subversion and the re-framing, redefinition and redirection of basic education and popular opinion concerning these principals.

I get that the Constitution is four pieces of paper. But it is a codification of an ethos that sets us apart from every other culture. An ethos that is all but erased from the civic foundations of the generation set to inherit our countries future.

These precepts are ignored because we ALLOW them to be ignored.

Not to be rude, but you aren't schooling me, I am well aware of George Mason and Patrick Henry et al and their contributions to our "Bill of Rights" or LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER... which is the more important issue.
 
So companies should pay taxes when they don't have to legally? Why stop there? Why not have companies donate extra money to the government on top of taxes?

And then the money dies in their bank accounts right?

Rich people don't invest venture capital, or buy high end goods, or travel, or buy property, or support their families, or give money to universities etc...

I think that many wealthy people have done great things. I'm extremely glad that there are the Gates' of the world that do incredible amounts for others. I also know there are a lot of greedy rich that sit on their arses with a huge number in their bank account and they don't give a cent. Many of them inherited.

In my opinion I think someone, somewhere has to come up with a way that gives people tax breaks if they add a positive aspect to the economy. Next to impossible to calculate I know but I am sure there must be some method that works. This would mean that the companies that want to save on tax now so they can help invest positively into the economy later would not have to go offshore but those who sit on cash for the hell of filling up bank accounts would have to pay towards the country through the less efficient system of the government.

I believe everyone has to contribute towards the world positively, whether it is through direct means or if they are too greedy then through governmental means (Not socialist but also not fully liberal. A mixture). It's up to some forward thinking government somewhere to give it a shot. We all know the current system isn't working.

Nothing personal sixthcutuan, and sorry to derail the thread into another topic entirely:

It floors me that people are so easily deluded and misinformed. The United States of America is not a democracy!

I'm not actually from the US as you might have noticed so I don't know a whole lot about your system. I don't think that most western countries come close to democracies (hence the "supposed to") however I think that with checks and balances (to delay the angry mob and give them time to think) that the general consensus should matter. I personally think the current american system favours a few and forgets the many.

It is odd that this connection is missed so often on the forum given that every episode of Shark Tank gets its own thread. It is doubly odd given that Google itself was funded early by VCs (Kleiner Perkins, etc.).

Sorry I just didn't make my opinion clear enough.
 
Technically, one could argue that Google is doing less evil by preventing their taxable earnings from being collected and then spent on warfare and nation building.
 
I get that the Constitution is four pieces of paper. But it is a codification of an ethos that sets us apart from every other culture. An ethos that is all but erased from the civic foundations of the generation set to inherit our countries future.
But it's not. That's just myth making.

This "ethos" you speak of was the American culture BEFORE the Constitution, no because of it.

Not to be rude, but you aren't schooling me, I am well aware of George Mason and Patrick Henry et al and their contributions to our "Bill of Rights" or LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER... which is the more important issue.
There are no limits to federal power. It's in your head that there are. I think the last 250 years in America have proven that is the case. The ink was still drying on the Constitution when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed.

Read some revisionist history. America isn't what you think it is.

What America has been is the most fantastic public relations operation in the history of the world.

I think that many wealthy people have done great things. I'm extremely glad that there are the Gates' of the world that do incredible amounts for others. I also know there are a lot of greedy rich that sit on their arses with a huge number in their bank account and they don't give a cent. Many of them inherited.
Money in the bank is used to provide loans for mortgages and business investment.

There is nothing wrong with inheriting. It's how the next generation can live better than the last one.

In my opinion I think someone, somewhere has to come up with a way that gives people tax breaks if they add a positive aspect to the economy.
When you trade, you are doing something positive.

If I sell you something, I want the cash more than the good, and you want the good more than the cash. We're both better off after having made a trade.

Thus, all people who trade are by definition, increasing value in society.

It's ridiculous we tax people who add value, and then claim that we need to tax them more.

But generally, people don't understand even the most basic economic concepts.

I believe everyone has to contribute towards the world positively, whether it is through direct means or if they are too greedy then through governmental means (Not socialist but also not fully liberal. A mixture). It's up to some forward thinking government somewhere to give it a shot. We all know the current system isn't working.
All government is socialist. It has to be in order to be a government. You can think that mixing a little markets with socialism creates some acceptable hybrid, but the underlying principles are still socialism.

Greed is good. We're all motivated by self-interest. When I care for my parents, I do it out of self-interest. There is nothing wrong with greed.

What's wrong is that people don't understand economics, and then they expect miracles from government, the very agency that disrupts positive and peaceful society. Government creates nothing. It only redistributes from winners to losers. Even when they bail out corporations, they take money from winners (the producers in society) and reward losers (the failing banks etc).

I don't have much hope humanity will figure this out in my lifetime, and that's a damn shame, because we could be so much wealthier if we stopped throwing our money away on bad ideologies.
 
fuck, I wasnt fast enough to post nb4 guerilla.

however, I am fast enough to post nb4 mattseh, nb4 hellblazer, nb4 dresden, nb4 Jon
 
What America has been is the most fantastic public relations operation in the history of the world.

USA has been great at marketing.

The government set up by the founders allowed slavery; this should make everyone at least a little bit leery. All "non-voluntary" governments potentially allow anyone in that society to be made a slave.

The founding fathers purposely created a system that left the door open for changes. Some of those changes were allowing women the right to vote and run for office. This means that women potentially have the power to make it so that white males can be made slaves, and this all could be done entirely within the system.

Even if the founders had not left the door open for changes, all it would take is for the current people with the power to decide they want to allow them to hapen. In the words of George W. Bush, "the Constitution is just a Goddamned piece of paper."
 
So fucking what? I'm glad 25,000 useless leeches can't collect welfare nor will I government buy another 100 helicopters to "spread democracy" to some other country that doesn't want US interference.
 
So you believe people should either give up something that's theirs or be forced to by the government? Aka theft?

Yes but I don't see it as theft. I see it that without the government, almost all of the money we have "earned" would not be there. I don't agree with your John Stuart Mill -esque idea that everything we "earn" should belong to the person and not the government.

Money in the bank is used to provide loans for mortgages and business investment.

There is nothing wrong with inheriting. It's how the next generation can live better than the last one.
I was not having a go at those who inherit, I just think that many of those rich people that fit the stereotype often come from extremely wealthy backgrounds. Some of these people have literally no idea about poverty or anything outside of their lives.

When you trade, you are doing something positive.

If I sell you something, I want the cash more than the good, and you want the good more than the cash. We're both better off after having made a trade.

Thus, all people who trade are by definition, increasing value in society.

It's ridiculous we tax people who add value, and then claim that we need to tax them more.

But generally, people don't understand even the most basic economic concepts.

Your definition of value is very different to mine it seems. To put forward a fairly extreme example, if someone is buying heroin from a drug dealer I would personally say the person receiving the heroin does not "add value" to the country. When I think of what I want an active economy to do, I dont think "I want a bigger GDP". I don't even think "I want a bigger GDP per human capita". I think "I want human welfare to be maximised". Look at the US. Over the last 50 years the real wage for the average worker has not increased at all. 25 years ago the top 1% of the USA controlled 12% of the income and 33% of the wealth. Now they control almost a quarter of the income and 40% of the wealth. I can assure you that they haven't been working THAT much harder than those at the bottom of the pile.

All government is socialist. It has to be in order to be a government. You can think that mixing a little markets with socialism creates some acceptable hybrid, but the underlying principles are still socialism.

I don't mind the idea of socialism, communism, fascism or any ism. They are after all just names. I think that almost every line of thought has some valid points and that no method is perfect. I strongly disagree with people who state reasons not because they agree with them but just because they affiliate themselves with communism or socialism or anything else (the same way that they consistently vote for the same political party because they feel loyalty towards it. It's incredibly stupid).

Greed is good. We're all motivated by self-interest. When I care for my parents, I do it out of self-interest. There is nothing wrong with greed.

What's wrong is that people don't understand economics, and then they expect miracles from government, the very agency that disrupts positive and peaceful society. Government creates nothing. It only redistributes from winners to losers. Even when they bail out corporations, they take money from winners (the producers in society) and reward losers (the failing banks etc).

If you are suggesting that every human action (including affection) is due to selfishness, I disagree. I also think that government should not be the solution but I DO think it should be a fall-back option. You think I'm living in my little Utopian paradise of crowd-following socialists, I think you're wanting to live in an unrealistic, nearing absurd vision of your own Utopian paradise.

I don't have much hope humanity will figure this out in my lifetime, and that's a damn shame, because we could be so much wealthier if we stopped throwing our money away on bad ideologies.

There was an interesting point I heard Joseph Stiglitz say not too long ago. He pointed out that the closest a modern country has ever got to the free-market system was Industrial Great Britain. Very little tax, very few government regulations (e.g. health, environmental etc), a booming worldwide market and an extremely small government. And hey, Britain did great. Its economy grew massively. Everyone was having a great time ... oh wait, no. It was the first drop in life expectancy in the UK for a very long time. Many miners were expecting to be dead by their mid 20's. It was a period of disgusting squalor, poverty, sickness and greed. Economic growth did not lead to increased welfare. Hell if you're looking for a low tax rate, try medieval Britain. I hear it was only about 1%.
 
We have no rights, that shit is a myth.

We have privileges. The Government decides if and when they will take them away, therefore they are only privileges.

Some would argue that the ability for moral abstraction is what seperates us from animals.

However, history certainly doesn't provide much evidence for God given rights.

But is it still worth pursuing those ideals or should we just degenerate into fragmented right by might, gun anarchy?