Topic: Eric Schmidt: "I'm proud of our tax avoidance scheme...it's called capitalism" (Read 4560 times)

I respectfully disagree with this opinion of yours.

------------------------------


Welp.  I'd like to ask you to reconsider that statement.

Beliefs are not "things", and they certainly do not "exist".  Telling me "nationalism exists" is like telling me "the number two exists".  It is a categorical mistake.  The statement "nationalism exists" is not even wrong.

This is not a personal criticism.  I am simply asking you to be a bit more rigorous so we can talk about the issue.  I honestly don't want to be mean, and I've never spoken to you before, yet I feel compelled to share this with you when we think about the issues we discuss, we need to think correctly, first and foremost.  Otherwise, our conclusions will most likely be wrong -- or, if they are correct, they will be correct only out of sheer coincidence.

I'll just leave this here... http://mises.org/daily/6310/Long-Live-the-Loophole

Perhaps it could whet your appetite.

As already pointed out, this happens a lot, but the problem is their own loopholes, in many countries, including the UK.
I don't like what Google is doing, it's cheeky as hell, but if legally they can do it, that is the governments problem. Their own law allowed them.
Remove or close them loopholes, problem solved. They could stop it if they wanted, by changing the laws.
Problem is the people capable of changing them also like or use those loopholes so they'll won't be too inclined to do that.

Tax laws from little I know are a total mess, filled with addition after addition, allowing for loopholes everywhere.
Simplicity is needed, not another band aid, no if or buts or maybes in the right situation, can you avoid paying your taxes.

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

I think you're severely oversimplifying both concepts.

Both of these things exist because they appeal to certain built-in human qualities.

The problem is that the natural expression of these things is usurped and exploited by the powerful to their own ends.

Nationalism is the belief that being born in an arbitrary plot of land that you didn't choose, somehow makes you superior or more worthy than being born outside said plot of land.

Nationalism is an insane belief, as insane as thinking that having faith in a certain invisible magical being is superior to having faith in a different invisible magical being.

Nationalism is also a very dangerous belief, because it predisposes people to collectivize strangers from different plots of land and believe evil and false things about them.  And you all know what is enabled by such an odious collective belief (hint: the rulers can use this to order the peasants to mass murder the other peasants, and their peasants will happily comply).

When you break beliefs into their structural components ("people doing things"), pretty much all modern cultural beliefs are simply insane.

Each man a nation.

Ok well first let me debunk the parasite bit. Even if we assume (falsely but thats neither here no there) for the sake of argument that the share holders are not providing any value by creating new products and selling them in the market, the idea that they are parasitic relies on the assumption that they are not only not providing a net benefit to society but that the act of incorporation somehow imposes a cost on others. In order to demonstrate that incorporated persons are inherently parasitic you would need to demonstrate that in the absence of taxation a) the act of incorporation would tend to impose a cost on others b) this cost would tend to not be outweighed by the advantages to society provided by the act of incorporation.

ok so now debunking the parasite thing isnt good enough. The post also claims that if group a enjoys some form of competitive advantage over group b than group b is entitled to some from of compensation at the expense of group a. It asserts this as if it is taken for granted but it is not taken for granted by everyone and so requires some elaboration. As specifically as possible, why is group b entitled to the products of group a's labor in the aforementioned example?

The post does get one thing right, if incorporated persons where inherently parasitic than the general public would be entitled to some form of compensation for damages.

Instead of demanding that people solve your questions, why not come up with an answer yourself?  Difficulty level: you are not allowed to use or advocate for aggression against nonaggressive people.  Hey, statist, can't answer a question yourself without asking "will this be in the test?"

(I understand that is difficulty 11 for statists, but hey, why must voluntaryists be the ones to explain every little detail about how non-aggresison works?  If he is genuinenly interested in an answer to the question -- rather than idly wasting people's time with questions whose answers he will never accept -- surely he will volunteer a reasonable and workable answer.  It's not rocket science.)

Seriuosly, the mark of intelligence, of productivity, of decency, of rationality, of well-doing, isn't asking questions to obvious answers.  It is providng answers.  I have seen myrkul provide countless answers (most of which have been derided and discredited through namecalling by idiots here).  How about we hold statists to their stringent standards?  Or are they too cowardly to take some of their own heat?  Shit, I give several hundreds of my own Bitcoins every year to people who are doing good, why the fuck should I (or any other voluntaryist) answer questions for cocksuckers who want me put in a cage for wanting to give to these causes more, and getting robbed less?

How do you run a society without violence?  You help, bitch.  You help.  That's what you do.  If you think people won't help, then don't suggest sociopathic solutions to your bullshit problem.  If you don't want to run a society like we all do, shut up about the fucking question, because you really don't fucking care.

The people who want companies to stop using tax loopholes are entirely powerless to change the holy papers.

The people who benefit from the tax loopholes (in oh so many ways) who are elected by the abovementioned chumps, have absolutely no interest, desire, or incentive to change the holy papers.

Democracy.  It does the societal cancer good.

Then they probably don't have a job, a house, or anything else to rub together. That's not just poor, that's destitute. Charities exist to help people like that, I've received the aid of one of them myself, when I was going through a rough patch. And my point was not that we have a higher standard of poor, but the closely related fact that the market will provide even the poorest members of society (unless, as I say, they're absolutely flat busted broke) with their desires. Poor people want color TVs. So they get them. Perhaps the TV doesn't have Picture in Picture, or the ability to tune in five million channels, and perhaps it is not 51 inches, but it is in color, and can tune the local stations reliably. So if there is a need for low-cost basic services, they will be provided.

I am giving an example, I would never dump or do harm to others intentionally without just cause.   Boycott is an effective tactic on the past, problem is that people these days don't know how to really standup to the powers that be these days and continue to keep the pressure on.


Well TVs are not just for entertainment so I will leave it at that. 

But I see where your going and yes, we have a much higher standard of poor than even 50 years ago. I still would like to know what happens when someone who is truly poor can not pay for a basic service in your society.

Well, you're welcome to take that tactic, but then, I'm not obligated to buy your product, either. Neither is anyone else. And if you're going to be a dick about dumping poison into the river and then not paying to clean it up, I'm for damn sure going to make sure that all my friends, family, acquaintances, online peer groups, and random passerby on the street know that you're being a dick about it, and if they don't want to support you dumping poison into rivers, they should not buy your product, either.

Even the poorest families in the US have color TVs. Before you say that this doesn't mean anything in context, I assure you it does. If you think about it for a second, you may even see what.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

Yes I did, this is called debate and discourse.   I have no ulterior motives other than to change your mind about this form of government.    Rudd-O you need to pay attention more.

How are you going to capture your damages from your winning settlement?  Come force my "private" bank to give it up.   Maybe my private is the bank where there motto is "we don't give up your money to anyone".   This is what I am talking about, your voluntary system does not work without an actual third party strong enough to enforce compliance.

Hate these politics guys.
You want companies to stop using tax loopholes? --> CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Otherwise? --> STFU.

That's exactly what happened, in reality.  He just didn't openly concede your point.  At this point, I usually stop people, thanking them for conceding, delineate a clear distinction between their former (now-defeated) argument and the new argument, and then ask them to openly concede, or else I won't address their new argument.

That way makes it very clear what just happened.

Actually, I'd call what he did conceding my point, and then attempting to make another one.

Myrkul, I wanna share something with you, that happened in this interaction.  I want to call your attention on how you let Dalkore change the topic.  He had to answer your question, so you could continue make the argument that you were going to make.  In answering your question, he said this:


...thereby changing the topic from the point you were trying to make, to a different argument to support the criminals we call "State".

He threw you a red herring, and you (you all, really) bit.  He managed to derail the previous topic right out of the conversation, and gain control of the conversation again.

People: don't bite; stay on target.  Realize his manipulation for what it is: an attempt to put you in the defensive.