Argus Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 Why? A lot of people feel it would help, whereas you on the right feel it wouldn't make any difference. So surely we ought to try it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 Exactly. Some people don't like it that businesses are private property, and can be done with as the owner pleases. The tax laws simply need to be changed, that's all. Companies like Apple and Google need to pay full taxes on the business they do in a given country. Let them move to whatever post office box they choose. They still need to pay taxes on sales and operations within the US and Canada. Which they are not now doing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 No....certain rights are "natural"..."unalienable"...not "given". Just food for thought ! There is no 'right' to low taxes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 There is no 'right' to low taxes. Taxes are not rights...they are responsibilities / liabilities. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) A tax is your membership fee for belonging to a certain club, which happens to be your country as well as your province/state, city, etc, which all take their cut. The problem is that membership in said club is mandatory and the only way to leave one club is to join another. This is actually relatively unique in human history, starting only in the last century or so. Prior to that, you could always go live out on the frontier away from where any government would be likely to come bother you (few people did, but that option existed in principle). Edited January 29, 2015 by Bonam Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 I don't want to live in a country where private property doesn't remain private anymore. Also to point out, countries can pretty much seize assets when they want to - which is supported by national and international law. I came across the UN edict indicating that it's allowed "in the national interest" when looking into the Cuba-USA negotiations. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 Also to point out, countries can pretty much seize assets when they want to - which is supported by national and international law. I came across the UN edict indicating that it's allowed "in the national interest" when looking into the Cuba-USA negotiations. The UN is hardly the final arbiter of such things. Many governments require due process and compensation for such seizures. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WIP Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Posted January 29, 2015 A tax is your membership fee for belonging to a certain club, which happens to be your country as well as your province/state, city, etc, which all take their cut. The problem is that membership in said club is mandatory and the only way to leave one club is to join another. This is actually relatively unique in human history, starting only in the last century or so. Prior to that, you could always go live out on the frontier away from where any government would be likely to come bother you (few people did, but that option existed in principle). Really! Very few were actually on the "frontier, except in novels." Everywhere you go, you're going to find some form of government, and if it was a real, actual wilderness locale, as more people gather, they create a government of their own. Nevertheless, the world is a very crowded place today; and the only frontiers are in outer space...if anyone is ever able to live there in the future. What is unique in human history is the rise of radical notions of individualism beginning with the privileged dilettantes of the age of the enlightenment, leading up to increasingly bizarre libertarian ideologies that are with us today.......not because of their intellectual merit, but rather by the degree with which they stroke the ego's of those who already consider themselves superior to those around them...so they don't need the rest of us anyway....they can do it all on their own....except in real life! Anyway, this "club" you talk of, has been with the human race ever since modern humans walked the Earth. In the beginning, it was the small family group tribal societies that varied in size from about 40 to a max. of 200 individuals. Our beginnings were non-hierarchical...even anti-hierarchical, especially among the men of a tribe who, in the more modern examples practiced "status-leveling" behaviours any time the group felt someone was trying to rise above the pack. That's how much early human life depended on cooperation for survival. What is of note, is that regardless of whether these communistic lifestyles are practical in modern cultures, these are the behaviours we are hardwired for, and NOT the radical individualistic crap of the Ayn Rand novels and supporting works. What happened as the first tribes became more sedentary, depended more on planted grains and figs and other plants, and then took up farming permanently beginning in Asia Minor, is that we see the rise of hierarchies and differences in social status we have today. Some early village farming communities were more hierarchical than others, but the general trend has been towards increasingly hierarchical, larger and more impersonal societies. Once a society is too large (over 200 members) for everyone to know each other, then government is more impersonal/ but still necessary! There are costs for whatever level of services we want from government, and somebody has to pay for them! What we have today, are too many people who expect to be protected from: foreign invasion, natural disasters, crime etc., while expecting public services, such as road, water&sewage, schools etc. to be provided. And some of us would rather kick in a little extra to provide better social services to guarantee at least a basic standard of living: food, clothing, shelter, rather than leave people dangling on the edge of survival, depending on the charity of those with money to provide for them. I have charities I support too! But, I would rather pay extra in taxes and have a guarantee that nobody dies in the streets, than leave it up to chance...especially as social studies inform us that high income earners are the most selfish and give less to charity than those in the middle class and lower! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Posted January 29, 2015 BTW, all of you libertarians out there, this is why everyone who is not self-employed needs to belong to a union...hopefully an effective union: Tim Hortons layoffs blindsided workers, manager says Company had played down speculation about mass job cutsThey didn’t see it coming. That’s what a laid-off Tim Hortons manager tells CBC News. Instead, she says, just days before job cuts were announced, the company played down media speculation about mass layoffs and gave employees the impression they shouldn’t worry. So when Tim Hortons started doling out pink slips at its headquarters and regional offices across the country on Monday and Tuesday, she says, "it was really shocking." "We all anticipated something happening. I don't think any of us assumed it was going to happen so fast. There was just no transition time and it was pretty much, these guys came in, your job is gone." Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Shady Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 The tax laws simply need to be changed, that's all. Companies like Apple and Google need to pay full taxes on the business they do in a given country. Let them move to whatever post office box they choose. They still need to pay taxes on sales and operations within the US and Canada. Which they are not now doing. They do pay taxes on income in Canada and US. Overseas income is paid to the countries they reside in. Quote
Shady Posted January 29, 2015 Report Posted January 29, 2015 A lot of people feel it would help, whereas you on the right feel it wouldn't make any difference. So surely we ought to try it. How exactly would a 70% or 90% tax rate help? By destroying the economy and job creation? I've already posted data that the percentage of tax revenue paid by the top 3% has actually grown under lower tax rates. Why would you want to reverse that? You want to go back to when the top 3% paid a lower percentage of tax revenue to the government? How would that "help?" Quote
Argus Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 They do pay taxes on income in Canada and US. Overseas income is paid to the countries they reside in. They don't pay the taxes they ought to be paying. They are hiding income by funneling large amounts of cash to overseas affiliates and then showing empty pockets and sad eyes to the tax man. "Gosh, yes we did earn billions of dollars, but see, we had to buy a lot of hammers from our Irish affiliate for a hundred million apiece, so there's just no profits. sorry." Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 How exactly would a 70% or 90% tax rate help? By destroying the economy and job creation? I've already posted data that the percentage of tax revenue paid by the top 3% has actually grown under lower tax rates. This seems to be kind of schizophrenic. Once again you're suggesting that such an increase wouldn't produce any extra cash, while at the same time would destroy the economy. Maybe you should try and reconcile this. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.