/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>147812
I dont mind aslong as its spent wisely.

A necessity for some public benefits but should be avoided if possible.

>>147812
No taxation without federal free ice cream mondays

No taxation without representation

>>147848
>A necessity for some public benefits but should be avoided if possible.

This.

Also, I would prefer a flat 15% tax for everyone without any loopholes, credits, or special deductions.

>>148016
This. Progressive taxation systems are stupid and punish success.

Theft. Privatize everything.

>>148031
fuck you

>>148022

Everyone bitches about how the rich don't pay their "fair share". The way they get out of their "fair share" is all the little tricks you can use to move money around and reduce your taxable income.

I do all kinds of stuff I'd never bother with if it weren't for the deduction I get for it. Millionaires have yet more options.

>small business owner running a business I inherited from dad when he died last year
>only profited $5,000 my first year, no other income
>Federal tax just over $800

I don't get it, If I didnt get help from my family I couldnt afford to live, and they still tax me?

I probably qualify for welfare but eh fuck it. I think Im gonna make 20k this year, and if I can keep improving at that rate Ill be doing well.

>>147960

>>147812
This picture was probably made in 2005. Back when PLUG was trading at 62.20 and not a mere $4. Fuck me I need sleep.

to answer your question, i think there should be a flat rate. Lower taxes for companies and higher minimum wage, everyone's happy. Although economics and politics isn't my forté.

I don't mind the federal tax, it's all the other bullshit taxes that piss me off,
>fica
>ss
>high as fuck property tax for my area
>8%-9% sales tax in my area
>state charges sales tax on internet sales now
>5% state income tax
basically I live in a shitty state

>>147812
It's synonymous with the word "theft"

>>148053
I see it like this. When an investor makes a profit on his investment, he had to deal with the RISK that all of his capital would go up in smoke if it didn't work out. And when he's fortunate enough to not lose his money, he has to pay capital gains tax on it. But when he LOSES his money, he gets a meager tax credit up to a few thousand dollars on what may have been millions in losses.

When your average peasant goes to work, he's GUARANTEED payment for his time. There's no risk that he'll work and won't get paid, and the law will back him up on that. So he then gets taxed up to 40% and he bitches about it. But he had no RISK. So if you're going to tax investors, by God you'd better be taxing the peasants even more.

That's how I see it.

>>148255
Leave california already. The weather just isn't worth it.

I'd like to have a freedom of choice what taxes to pay. Amount may be fixed, but I want to choose where it will go.

>>148410
Can you even begin to imagine what a logistical nightmare that would be?

The State and - by extension - taxation, exist out of economic necessity; they are evil but they are a ubiquitous evil; without them, another criminal enterprise would simply train up it's own brigade of brutes (Police officers, military personnel, etc) and give itself the authority to tax it's subjects. It's a huge protection racket not unlike the mafia, just infinitely more sophisticated.

This isn't to say it's an engineered conspiracy, it simply happens because of economics.

>>148414
Not really. I bet current state of internet would be seen as "logistical nightmare" in early 1990's too, but it works just fine.

>>148418
Pretty much this, although I want exclude moral judgement in the form of 'evil'.

>>148414
Not really.

Indirect taxes are theft, plain and simple e.g. income tax.

Direct taxes (taxes on what you purchase) are fair. You have a choice. Take the example of a toll road. You can go the long way around or you can choose to pay a fee to get somewhere more quickly. This is how all taxes should be.

Taxes should also be flat, not progressive.

>>148580
The downside of VAT taxes is that they are regressive in nature. They hit those who consume a higher portion of their income, AKA the poor, more. Income taxes may not be perfect, but it avoids that issue.

>>148580
Except he's not talking about direct vs. indirect tax. He's talking about an income (I assume) tax in which the taxpayer would be allowed to allocate where his tax dollars are being spent. (Pdo9wigm please reply to me if I'm wrong). The problem with this system, even if we had the infrastructure to make it work relatively efficiently, is twofold. First is the poor allocation of tax dollars. The public will probably underestimate the cost of necessary but unpopular (by this I mean not talked about) programs like maintaining infrastructure and will devote a gross portion of the tax revenue to more social issues like welfare programs and birth control. Second is the need of the government to conduct secret operations such as the Manhattan Project that are costly but cannot be known to the public as a matter of national security.
I definitely see the merit to such a system though. It'd be much more representative of what the people want, and if implemented correctly could cut back a lot of corruption.

>>148418
>It's a huge protection racket not unlike the mafia
I don't get when people say this like it's a bad thing. What the fuck do they think civilization is? The only reason the mafia is looked down upon is that it's moving on the government's turf. But to become the huge, monolithic thing that it is today, govt. first had to form from tribes/gangs, then clans, monarchies, etc. All carrying out the same basic principles. Then suddenly when it's federal, muh taxation=theft is a valid argument? Fuck.

Taxation & Regulation are Necessary for Stability.

Taxation is robbery

http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

>>148633
>Except he's not talking about direct vs. indirect tax.

I know, I'm just making that point.

I do agree we need some indirect taxes, but they should be minimal and only levied by municipal authorities and NOT on a wider level (national).

>>148373
>tfw this is Il and don't even get good weather ever

>>148363
I remember a old Greek or Roman line of thinking that revolved around privileges, that is read in the old manner and not tumblr-social-justice-way, PRI-VI-LE-GIS not privuledges like you Americans like to say.

This isn't a game of risk and reward. Essentially the argument from back then was that for all the great things you get for being rich and powerful you will also have to carry more of the burden of running this state. Nowadays this sounds like social justice drivel because tumblr tardwranglers have dragged the concept through the dirt but back then it made real, direct sense; because a citizen with a lot of dosh and power in the proportionally much smaller societies really had something to say and "mover and shaker" wasn't even beginning to cover their influence. They mobilized armies, they paid for flotillas to be constructed.

The joke is that the situation has not changed at all. The big guys still move and shake whatever they want to, they just got disenfranchised about the concept of doing something for the state they live in. Why should they, it's not like the fucking state made all of their success and wealth possible in the first place, r-right guise? *sips caubernet-sauvingnon*

With great power (money) comes great responsibility. Only nowadays people are too egocentric to do anything good for the nation on their own so taxes handle that automatically. Deal with it, unless you open up a homeless shelter with your dosh.

>>150721
It's a bad thing because it violates the cooperative ethic that creates value. It's also not a true free market; I would never pay to support the feminazi cunts that my government employs to "protect womens rights in the workplace", and I'm guessing most no one else would either.

It's anti-democratic because its not voluntary.

>>148373
A problem with California is that a lot more money leaves the state in federal taxes than comes back in federal aid (that goes to poor states like the south). It means state taxes have to be higher than in other states, who get the fed (and by extension California) to chip in for more of their government programs.

>>148016

This motherfucker knows what's going on. No loopholes, no special deductions - you want to spend on charity, spend money that wouldn't have gone to the country otherwise.

Also, flat tax is best tax, purely from a philosophical perspective. The tax is what a citizens gives to the community, since we are all equal, we should all pay equally.

>>150934
The movers and shakers back then ran the country. Now, every fortune 500 CEO pays for someone else's grand scheme. Of course they feel disenfranchised. They foot the bill and the peasants get to decide how its spent. And don't tell me the "movers and shakers of today" have more than or even equal to power than before, it isn't true. You can look at the large percentage of this country that pays NO TAXES and still gets to vote with the same power as everyone else.

>>150934

thanks man, you are the first not retarded person I've seen on this board

>>152900
But we wouldn't give equally.

>>148410

This is incredibly dumb. Government has a lot of functions, most of which act without publicity. So the end effect would be a terribly bad allocation of funding (like the FBI and DoD getting loadsamoney while DOT, NARA, and agricultural research starving out). It's also redundant, since public opinion of allocation is accounted for at the congressional level.

Great since teachers in my province (lel canada) make 100k after 10 years of working as a teacher and that just happens to be my career path.

>>152900
>since we are all equal

keep it simple stupid

>>148441
budgeting would be rough. they'd have to be 3-years out at least. that would affect want people will think is a good thing to pay taxes to

>>147812
I feel like voting requirements should include a taxable income of at least $5000 with government assistance making up no more than %25 of that sum.

>>150934

It's also about immigrants. People don't want to "help" their nation when more and more foreigners or different ethnicities reside in it.

>>154755
That being said, if a person were to be employed for 40 or more years with annual income per year amounted to the adjusted (from inflation) equivalent of $5000 and is living off of a fixed income from Social Security, they should be allowed to vote, as they already did their time and worked for our country.

Stuck behind the necessities of our time. Payroll taxation is a faulty system in a society which has advanced so far it cannot employ all people. VAT is where it's at. Cut all payroll taxation (except for ridiculous wages (think CEO level)) and charge the VAT up the ass in exchange.

>>154755
>>154764
Actually, just say you can vote if you have a taxable income, but if any party claims you as a dependent, including the gocernment, your right to vote is cancelled for that fiscal year.

It's theft and should be abolished.

>>148022
Out of curiosity, do you know what an LLC or an S-Corp is?

As a fairly light libertarian think taxing is a necessary evil (some things like law enforcement or other major projects are simply not feasible to be done by the free market).

However, economical discrimination needs to STOP. Set a FLAT tax for everyone. Say, anything between 5 and 10%.

There's literally no reason other than MUH SOCIALISM for richer people (coincidentally the hardest working people) having higher tax brackets.

>>154812

I tip my hat to you.

I tip my fedora to you good sir

>>147812
People stealing your stuff at gounpoint because they say so. Evil as fuck.

Assuming taxation is not theft (which is false),
flat tax is not fair.

If a person uses the same infrastructure as much anybody else but by his own labor produces 10x as much by the sole virtue of his own extraordinary labor then is not fair that he pays as much as people who make 10x less who use the infrastructure as much as him?

Taxes are necessary for society to function.

Unfortunately every year they take and take a little more. It's unsustainable. Also I don't believe in sales tax or property tax. Sales tax is an unnecessary burden on the poor because they have to pay the same tax percentage on products as rich people, and property tax is just you renting the land that you "own".

What do you guys think about this?

>>154902
So what are you advocating? setting a set dollar amount per person that they have to pay taxes on?

>>154918
>Taxes are necessary for society to function.
how do we know this is true?

Can anyone give one reason why a progressive taxation system is fair?

>>154918
agree for property tax, that shit is retarded, disagree for goods tax however, since it is a percent, it is only going to matter if the poor person is buying something they couldn't afford anyway.

I think tax rates should be flat for true fairness, ie. Everyone pays 10%.

tax should only cover essentials - police, fire, ambulance and education - things which the private market cannot realistically and reliably cover (at least not without government intervention or regulation which would just mean more red tape)

anything else the government should be running like a private business. State owned shops, state owned manufacturers. Allow 50% private investment to start up infrastructure, but then use the money to fund business, pay for activities, and turn a minimal profit which can then be used to repeat this as well as pay for other expenses that taxes normally cover. In this way, business money contributes 100% of its revenue to the government instead of a tax of 30%, and in addition the government provides affordable quality services to the country while simultaneously revenue raising, instead of just taking the money that people work hard for and spending it on passing laws that no one asked for.

democracy 2/10 would not bang.

They are necessary, but more than $.50 of every dollar collected is wasted or spent on malicious things. Beyond this, I am starting to not like paying taxes because I, along with many of my friends and family, don't feel I'm being adequately represented in government.

>>154941
Don't feel we're being adequately represented in government*

>>154936
In Australia the goods/services tax is exempt on fresh food (but not processed food), and much of education, health and childcare.

Flat tax is far from fair, don't even embarras yourself by trying to explain why that isn't so.

>>154946
I am aware that some things are GST free or exempt. Not really sure why you brought that up as it was irrelevant to the discussion however.

and a flat tax is obviously fair. You're just suffering from classic Australian tall poppy syndrome. If everyone is paying the same percent it is perfectly fair. Why should a poor person pay a lower percent? They are already paying a considerably lower dollar value, not to mention the government is or will very likely put more money into them than it will into a wealthy person. The wealthy person pays their own medical bills, never needs welfare, generates new businesses and therefore stimulates the Economy through investment, and by some cancer growing in your frontal love you think it is fair for them to not only already be paying enormous amounts of taxes, but that because they worked hard and got rich, they should prop up everyone who didn't by paying a higher percentage?

how about you choke on a hobos dick cheese faggtron, any person with a brain can clearly see that progressive taxes are retarded and discourage success.

>>154936
It's true that food isn't generally taxed, but what about toilet paper? Toothpaste? Shampoo?

As for income tax... I don't we should have one at all. I agree with what you say the government should and should not do however

I don't have a problem with taxes as a concept. My problem is the government is always trying to set the bar higher. Its getting harder and harder to get ahead in today's world and its almost as if the government is doing it on purpose. You want to drive a car? Well your going to have to pay for a test wait a year and then pay for another test and constantyl renew your licence through out your life. Also your going to have to pay us for licence plates and you need to have insurance. And it dosnt matter if your car is used were taxing you.

This small example is a reason i am put off from getting a car and its not just me, hundreds of thousands of high school graduates no longer want to drive. The same could be said about small businesses and the nightmare that ensues as soon as you make $1. All these complains about jobs being outsourced and the rich not opening manufacturing plants in North America and social stillborns can be traced back to government regulation.

I don't mind taxation for the purpose of improving the country - infrastructure, health care, whatever.
I do mind taxes being used to pay off the scumbags that own the central banks.
I also mind taxes being used to pay for welfare leeches. Not that there is anything wrong with welfare (everyone can have a streak of bad luck), but the stereotypical unemployed immigrant family with 10 children is based on reality.

no matter what, by taxing you are creating a deadweight loss. therefore i must say i think taxation is wasteful.

>>147812
Pretty okay if you're cool with the services it offers like public healthcare and education. Not having to pay for college was excellent, although in reality I did and still do.

>>152972
>You can look at the large percentage of this country that pays NO TAXES and still gets to vote with the same power as everyone else.
You mean like the rich people with all their dosh in the fucking bahamas on offshore bank accounts?

>>154876
I don't think you understand how that joke works at all.

>>154918
Property taxes are necessary because they prevent people from hoarding land and not using it productively. It also scales proportionally to the rich.

Residential property taxes I don't like so much though.

>>155372
well, you should be weeping, then.

less than 10% of current taxation goes towards infrastructure and human capital investments

More than 50% of it is straight up welfare entitlements, 20% is military, and the rest is various pork

>>154936
>tax should only cover essentials - police, fire, ambulance and education

I would put Universal Healthcare and Scientific Endorsement as well ( I don't think I need to mention Military Expenditures).

It is also good to create a set of system that would help people below the poverty line to rise to at least low-income status where they could earned a salary they can survive on - the thinking behind is that the state would make it's money later on by taxing them.

>>155372
>I do mind taxes being used to pay off the scumbags that own the central banks.

If those institutions crumble the dollar would go to hell. They might be scumbags, but they hold the currency hostage.

>>157550
The problem is that universal healthcare hampers price competetivity and disincentivizes the most important thing: self management of eating and exercise patterns

Also, elder care makes up more than 60% of ALL health expenditures. By universalizing healthcare you will make it harder for children to get cheap care and easier for elders to get expensive care

Taxes, under fiat currency, is basically destroying all that money printed from the Fed. Its is necessary to remove all that extra money otherwise inflation would occur (too many dollars chasing limited goods)

Basically limiting purchasing power is what taxes do, however who and what should be taxed is a political problem. Thats what everyone bitches about. The point of the government outta be to invest in high-risk yet communally beneficial endeavors (cell phones, internet, planes).

>>157590
The government has too much money to efficiently allocate it to things like developmental tech.

The government is almost always the worst allocator of resources. Blind picks tend to outperform the government in terms of gains. so they actually do WORSE than random, and the reasons it does worse are manifold.

The government should have absolutely zero hand in anything that is not infrastructure, human capital, or defense.

I don't mind it at all, and see it as a necessary evil. Being Canadian has really groomed me to accept taxes, and my country has a fairly good record of fiscal responsibility and not pissing money away (although a fair amount of corruption and stealing, but this happens everywhere I imagine).

>>157581

It is more a case of humanity, no man or woman should die, because the bill was too big. It's just the humane thing to do.

Also, America does not have universal healthcare and is one of the countries with the greatest obesity rate.

>>157640
>my country has a fairly good record of fiscal responsibility
You don't know anything about finance then.

Every country had a "responsible" history of accounting by the whitewashed forbes reports.

Oh, then it turns out nobody who actually worked within finance for the last 30 years actually believed it, they just pawned it off on easily fooled people like you

>>157668
Is it a matter of "humanity" to take bread from a starving child to feed an elderly person?

We spend 7 dollars on elders for every 1 dollar we spend on children.

That's fucking disgusting.

The harsh truth of the matter is, during a famine, the elderly should go first. Sorry.

We are in a famine of health care. The funding for healthcare should not go to the elderly, who cost literally 10 times as much to treat, nearly 60% of which is end of life care, only manages to extend their life by another year or two.

There are literally babies and children dying right now because of this.

Think about that for a second.

>>157664
But everything works fairly good here. We get paid decent wages, have a decent healthcare system, have less debt than most other 1st world nations, low unemployment, low illiteracy rate, etc. It's not perfect, but it works and there aren't a lot of huge bumps or drops in our economic systems.

Our only problem now is our baby boomers who didn't save for their retirements (and make up like 60% of our population) which the rest of the country now supports, but once they die it will be pretty smooth sailing.

>>157753
I don't deny that you guys punch above your weight when it comes to these issues, but look at actually competently run countries like switzerland or singapore.

They literally foresee ZERO issues in the future concerning their elder care situation because they went and told them they'd starve to death if they were fucking stupid enough to not save.

You guys haven't even incurred the greatest costs of your flawed system yet.

fully 60% of ALL medical expenses over the course of a lifetime occur in the final year of life. The canadian government is on the hook for ALL of that, and it won't come crashing home until the boomers start dying.

End of life care costs upwards of 400k per individual.

Where are you going to get 400k per individual for 60% of your population? How is that going to work?

Your country is going to fall apart

I work with alot of government workers in my job, the tendency is towards extreme laziness and indifference and power tripping, you have to really hassle them to get them to do anything

but in principle it works, just wish there was a way to get better accountability

>>157759
Well, they both have more debt than Canada, and I wish we did that but boomer's mindsets in the 70s and 80s was absolutely retarded. And remember that's going to be spread out over 10-15 years, it won't be like one d-day where all the old people start dying. Although ya it might be bad, but Canada has pretty good credit on a world scale, and I'm sure could get a loan from somewhere if shit really did hit the fan. There's also a huge portion of the population just entering or going to enter the workforce (generation y), so that will help quite a bit to offset the incurred costs.

>>157788
debt is different from unfunded liabiliites.

The swiss have MORE debt because they have accurate accounting principles, and they don't try to hide their debt by writing it off as unfunded liabilities.

Canadians basically struck their largest future expenditures off the record as UL.

A larger workforce isn't going to help fund the crisis if they're mostly minimum wage jobs, paying for a debt load that's 10x their yearly salary.

In fact, it'll make it even worse, because those individuals will not have the money to invest in the stock market to fund further market progress, to buy goods to fund their own market, or buy houses to start families or go to college to further their education.

That means their indexes will be ripe for the picking for foreign firms, as will their real estate market. This is called market sniping and/or predation.

It's something canada and america used to do to the third world.

You ever head about americans buying up water utilities in south america and then charging the south americans ridiculous prices for their own water?

yeah, that's what is about to happen to us.

The chinese are doing it to real estate, industrial real estate, and capex as we speak

A small price to pay for feeding dying people an extra few years, right? Undermining our national sovereignty and endebting your youth to foreigners?

I'm sorry. The humane choice is to give them a room to die in and spending zero else that they can't provide for on their own.

They're literally guilt tripping their grandchildren while they're selling their grandchildren into slavery.

It's disgusting

>>157610
I'll admit there is a problem of incentives with publicly defunded organizations vs. private ones.

However the only difference between a giant corp and a government monopoly is the degree to which it is democratic.

Private ventures are great (well depending on the particular market composition) at managing their own affairs (long term profit motive) but are they gonna develop "utopian" technology or really society changing tech? Not likely as the profit motive undermines such things.

Anyway the bigger point is the developmental tech is and has been typically funded by large states because they don't need to worry about dumping it on the consumer market.

I'm not sure what you mean by "blind picks" do better than the government?

>>157860
Well, the good thing for Canada is that we can produce almost all the goods we need to "make do" in house. If we wanted we could just close up exports in order to feed ourselves. It would put the country into a recession/depression, we dont NEED to import anything to get by.

Although yes foreign firms buying up Canadian businesses is already happening to a certain extent, a lot of the "big ones" are completely government run, and can survive on a loss for a very long time as opposed to a private company, which will immediately want to start liquidating.

I dont disagree with you, but I don't think we'll be as bad off as you're saying.

the only tax there should be is medical

everything else can just fuck off

>>157911

Believe me, you do not want private Fire and Police departments.

Although it'd probably improve response time by a lot...

>>157869
blind picks as in, completely random samples of market performance in terms of profits and useful techn output from tech companies outperforms the government record so far in terms of investment and development

>>157895
The problem with that plan is that in order to FORCE an inherently insolvent financial structure for elderly care to work, you'll need to impoverish the ENTIRE country for generations just to provide 'adequate' care to a bunch of people who are going to die anyway.

Not only is it insane, it's fucking inhumane.

People deserve dignified deaths from natural causes such as heart attacks and diseases of their own laziness.

They don't deserve to live on as drooling zombies for years on end, sapping money that could be going to feeding children.

Your country (mine too, admittedly) is on a fucking suicide crash-course. We are killing our youth in exchange for dying seniors.

The old prime minister of japan has openly said they need to just let the elderly die of natural causes, otherwise japan is doomed. He was, of course, lambasted for it.

We say we want honest politicians who will fix the problems honestly. but whenever we get them they end up being the least popular.

Democracy is a flawed system

>>157550
apart from maybe a national guard, military is a waste of money. Iceland has none and does fine.
science... Maybe. It really depends what kind of research it is going towards. Drug research no, since most drugs are just symptom treating, but maybe disease curing research or research that advances society as a whole is worthy of funding.

>>157917
Private fire would work. Firemen barely deal with fires as is. 90% of their calls are medical, where they send a fire truck n addition to an ambulance. It's a waste of money.

Private police would be a nightmare. But the police seriously need to be less accountable to politicians. They can barely do their fucking job as is.

Police and military are seriously the only things that should be funded by taxes.

Schools should be funded by taxes I guess, but under a voucher system that allows for institutional flexibility and choice of establishment

>>157550
oh,and universal healthcare is also kind of... Eh. The problem is that some medicines cost thousands a year only to prolong the lives of someone who will never be productive.

If I set up universal healthcare from scratch I would set a safety net instead, ie. Spend over 1k on doctors visits and we will then cover the rest, spend x on meds and we will cover the rest, but only certain medications and only the cheapest available option. If you want to pay 3000$ a month for a new monoclonal antibody go for it, but the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot that bill. Unless a drug cures a disease or is going to keep you being productive its a poor investment of taxes.

>>157987
THIS THIS THIS

If we deregulated healthcare we could be using perfectly effective treatments from 20 years ago that are 1/100th the cost, imported drugs and saline solution, and we wouldn't need to be paying nurses 80k a year to go around wiping asses 24/7. It could lower healthcare costs to 1/4 of current prices.

>>157950
The whole point is that government invests in things that are not gonna be profitable immediately or (possibly never profitable). How profitable would pharmaceuticals, cell phones, Apple, Lockheed-Martin etc, be without either the initial R+D investment or government contracts.

I know there is a proper place for the companies that benefit and improve from government investment but it makes no sense to compare them. Its like comparing many bitches some straight dude fucked verses a gay dude. They have different incentives.

Also what is preferable to democracy? Hard to think of better alternatives but those are flawed as well :/

>>158001
I work in healthcare so I see the cost of medicines to the government, and some are completely insane. A lot of new medicines cost around 500-3000$ for a months supply, but that's not the really big cost, the worst offenders:
atorvastatin and rosuvaststin being prescribed instead of the older simvastatin (virtually the same efficacy, simva costs around 3-5$ for a month, the other two can cost more than 50$)
and prescribing esomeprazole instead of omeprazole (again, costs 5$ for omep and around 60 for eso but they both have the same efficacy)

multiply this over the thousands of fatass dickshits who got fat and because of their poor lifestyle choices now think they have the right to sap our tax money instead of losing weight, and you've basically got a condition that costs 250 million that could be costing only 5 million.

governments should only fund the cheapest available drug of any class.

>>158038
direct democracy in an educated society is the only form of,government that is truly effective. Otherwise the next bet thing is a benevolent dictatorship of skilled committees.

incidentally the closest two are Switzerland for DD and Singapore for BD

>>157973
>Private Police would be a nightmare. But the police seriously need to be less accountable to politicians. They can barely do their fucking job as is.


A Thousand Times This.
My dad has been a police officer for over 20 years and nothing upsets him more than when the politicians get in the way of doing his job. Cant recall any specific stories at the moment, but it definitely has caused him to turn from Democrat to Republican in the past few years.

>>158129
Aren't they practically immune from the law? Put on suspension for beating a kid with a broken back who fell from an overpass.

>>158083
Yup.

Public healthcare means you and me have to pay for people that eat hot pockets and oreos all day.

Fuck that.

People die. They need to get over it.

The lazy people need to stop demanding that the responsible ones take care of them.

I learned this from the ant and the grasshopper story when I was fucking 5.

How are there adults that don't understand

>>158093

I was wondering, could Singapore function if it was a large society?

>>158155
>could singapore function if it was a large society
Have you ever heard of taiwan and/or korea?

>>158083
>governments should only fund the cheapest available drug of any class.
That would raise the prices of the cheap drugs. Don't you even supply/demand?

>>157973
>Private police would be a nightmare
Care to explain why you think that is?

>>158191
No, it would lower the prices. The cheaper drugs are cheaper because they are old, there is no patent on them, and the industrial processes to make them are more widespread. Increased demand would lead to an increase in production that would lower prices.

The cost of new drugs is SOLELY to finance their research. Theoretically this would lead to better drugs as time went on, but pharma has been on a treadmill for the last 30 years. Nothing BETTER has actually come out because we still don't fundamentally understand how most of them work.

The future of medecine is genotypical diagnosis. Pharma is a net drain

>>158192

Good point.

>>158129
>a police officer who was a Democrat

For what purpose?

>>158206
You really want a law enforcement industry to become powerful and influential, to lobby for new laws to make itself more money?

Cuz I don't.

Police needs to be small, but with independence, with narrow scope of authority, but absolute authority to enforce what responsibilities it does have.

e.g. gangs and crime. They shouldn't have the power to, say, wiretap civvies indiscriminately. But if there is a gangster with a gun, they deserve the power to shoot him down as well as anyone he is with.

>>158210
>No, it would lower the prices.
Any time the government buys a specific product by the millions/billions, the price goes up for the people who are actually paying for it.

>>157357

If you think the rich do this because they aren't fed up to high hell with signing away gigantic stacks of dollars each year to a reckless and wasteful government, you're an idiot.

>implying they don't already pay a disproportionate amount

>>158224
>You really want a law enforcement industry to become powerful and influential, to lobby for new laws to make itself more money?
If we got to the point where a society had private police forces competing as businesses, I'd imagine it would be a voluntary society without a state to lobby because you would have to remove the monopoly of force in order to have competition.

>>158231
Why is the government buying cheap drugs by the millions/billions?

Free market health care ensures that medical providers diversify their treatment options, ensures that providers don't buy through the government, or any other single-source provider, for that matter.

there are 100$ a month cancer treatments that exist which you will NOT be provided with because your insurance plans and hospitals mandate the treatments that make them more money. so instead you end up spending 300k on average for cancer treatment.

>>157753

The problem comes when you ask yourself...how well would Canada be doing without the government burden?

I think given your demographics and attitude that Canada would be doing pretty damn good with or without the size of your current govt.

>>158236
>implying they don't already have a disproportionate amount
They're breaking the law either way. You can pull excuses out of your ass till judgement day, breaking the law means you fucked up at some point, nigger.

>>157773

There's not. This is the fundamental essence of government. Without profit-seeking and competition, efficiency is impossible. Econ 102.

Obviously it's theft and makes society(especially the poor) worse off over time.

>>158191
no it wouldn't. Supply demand is barely even a real concept anymore. If the government negotiated with drug companies it could say "our entire country will use your medicine - but only if you accept 2.50 per pack" if they say no, they can move on to the next drug company producing the same generic product. Eventually a company will decide the entire population as a market at low markup is better than getting none at all, and if they don't the government could always fund a generic drug manufacturing facility and just provide the country with their own simvastatin, omeprazole and every other drug which has no patent protection. The company would be guaranteed profit because it would have 100% market share, but the profit would go towards improving the company or other healthcare benefits instead of lacing the pockets of a select few Johnson and Johnson or Pfizer executives.

>>158246
>people with guns and the sole ability to enforce lawfulness competing with each other for control over us
Yeah, no thanks.

like you said, if it becomes privatized it WILL grow.

We don't need an expansion of the police force.

We need a small police force that is actually capable of enforcing the laws that do exist.

Would you rather have 1 policeman who is ONLY allowed to shoot murderers, or 100 policeman who can wiretap you, AND shoot you, AND send you to guantanamo? Oh, and your tax money lines his pockets, so being private, he has an incentive to lobby for tax increases yearly.

Law enforcement in russia under the KGB was essentially privateized by their crime cartels.

Is that what you want?

The police force must remain small. It doesn't need to be larger in order to control gangs. It needs to be able to SHOOT gang members in order to control gangs.

Expansion in the police is an expansion of the police STATE. Use your brain

>>158155
I don't think so. Not as it does so effectively. It is a city state in the end and the entire basis of its existence is based on that. IE. The small size. That being said, so long as a majority in any country shared the same creed I don't see why it couldn't work. But the low population and high foreign investment as well as lack of natural resource is what made Singapore become what it is today, for another country to try copy that it would probably not work so well.

in an idealistic, global "village" where a world government existed and all countries where one, a place like Singapore would never work since the majority of its success lies in foreign investment due to its low taxes and other economic laws which differ from other countries. Take that away and from a financial or economic standpoin
Singapore would have little to offer.

>>158254
>because your insurance plans and hospitals mandate the treatments that make them more money
This is called collusion in most cases, but the medical industrial complex has a legal exemption in the anti-trust laws.

>>158277
>like you said, if it becomes privatized it WILL grow.
>We don't need an expansion of the police force.

I think either you have missed the entire point of my posts, or you are confusing me with someone else. I said "voluntary society", meaning without a state (monopoly of violence) to tax and subsidize any police force, private or public. Instead, people in this hypothetical society could pay for protection like they pay for anything else according to their means and needs.

When I heard "privatization of police", I forgot that government can, in fact, subsidize "private" police as well. This is an even more retarded of an idea than public police officers which guarantees corporate tyranny.

>>158276
>Supply demand is barely even a real concept anymore
>The company would be guaranteed profit because it would have 100% market share
You want to create a government subsidized monopoly in order to lower prices?

You are absolutely absurd.

>>158251
>let the maniacs run wild
>better

>>158356
in medicines, as another user pointed out, supply and demand is not a thing. The cost is for the cost of research. You think the 20 people in the world with some rare-ass disease are creating enough demand for a $50,000 medicine? Nahm8

and not subsidized. Owned. Monopolies with morals who work for the good of society are the best way to set low prices. Look at friendly societies in Australia. They don't run for profit, they receive tax cuts, and they are able to provide low prices while still being profitable. Expand that to the entire country and you've got a good situation there.

Isn't the income tax in the USA technically optional?

>>158277
>Would you rather have 1 policeman who is ONLY allowed to shoot murderers, or 100 policeman who can wiretap you, AND shoot you, AND send you to guantanamo?
Lol where the fuck are you getting this from?

Market anarchy has already been tried countless times, and it only resulted in a smaller, far more accountable police force.

You really have no argument.

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

>>158277
>Law enforcement in russia under the KGB was essentially privateized by their crime cartels.
and drug gangs are "privatized" too right?
top lel

>>158382
>You think the 20 people in the world with some rare-ass disease are creating enough demand for a $50,000 medicine? Nahm8
We are talking about generic, non-patented, medicine. Don't move the goalposts

>and not subsidized. Owned. Monopolies with morals (lol) who work for the good of society are the best way to set low prices.
Monopolies remove incentive for efficiency and quality. This is inherent without competition, and no amount of foresight can be put into a legally binding document (regulation) to eliminate the problem of scarcity. The law can always be updated again and again, but it has to compete with the only seemingly infinite resource known, human creativity. Letting creativity compete for demand instead of imagining ways around laws to supply a demand would create an optimally efficient system.

>Look at friendly societies in Australia
I had to look them up as I've never even heard of them, but they look very nice and I wish there were more of them. From what I've gathered, they seem to be completely on a voluntary basis and without government coercion. The lodges in the US used to do this very same thing for healthcare. A whole group would pay for a doctor/s that treated the club and families. People were getting medical help for dirt cheap (relative to today) with this collective bargaining until the AMA was created and effectively lobbied the government for protectionism (regulation, licenses, etc), effectively taking over the industry and causing prices to skyrocket.

>>158382
>supply and demand is not a thing.

Taxes are a good way of funding things which everyone benefits from and which cannot be provided in a sane way by private services (roads, military, the police, etc).

Income taxes are shit because people will go to any lengths necessary to look like they earned less money than they actually did.

Sales and VAT taxes have become shit because the internet is making it less clear where a transaction actually takes place, or even what constitutes a transaction, and thus who should be subject to the tax and in what amounts.

Property taxes are shit because unlike the past most of the wealth in the world isn't in land anymore.

Poll taxes are shit because they disenfranchise the poor, who even though they contribute little to nothing to society (and often take more than they give) you can't cut them out of the political process.

Basically there is no good way to tax people. Just varying degrees of evil, stupid, and ineffective.

>>158486
>Isn't the income tax in the USA technically optional?
no

>>158356
Supply for labour is comparatively inelastic though.

>>158556
Did you not see the cat?

>>158550
>Taxes are a good way of funding things which everyone benefits from and which cannot be provided in a sane way by private services (roads, military, the police, etc).
[citation needed]

>>158621
Try the 3rd chapter of any intro to macroeconomics textbook?

Things like roads and the military are referred to as "public goods". Goods which are essentially 100% positive externalities without any tangible return on investment.

>>158652

>>147812
if you believe taxes should be higher than they are you don't belong on biz.

>>158676
Boy, it sure would be nice if we could get all the taxpayers together and neatly and quickly decide to build some roads and pay some construction workers to do it, wouldn't it?

Are you aware of why governments exist in the first place?

>>158688
>>Are you aware of why governments exist in the first place?
The incentive to rule mixed with the anxiety and fears of society.

Governments are not based on any logic or morality at the very core. They rely on initiating force, the antithesis of voluntary action.

>>158688

Lol if only the governments knew this is why they exist.

>>158718
Go to sleep Molyneux you're drunk

>>158688
>if we could get all the taxpayers together
If there was no government there would be no tax payers. People would still have a demand for transportation. I don't know if roads are the answer, but people will pay to get around and businesses will compete to supply that demand.

>>158515
It's very weird that you would bring up the AMA, presumable to mean the American Medical Association, because Friendly Societies here began as lodges and incidentally the AMA here, being the Australian Medical Association, is the reason there are so few of them around now.

Regardless, most countries have a government set max. that they will pay for X medicine, so supply and demand really doesn't factor in at all. You can make millions of generic medicine X at virtually no cost once it goes off patent, so the supply is infinite, and the demand is only those who are willing to pay for it or the government who is willing to buy it. Since a government buyer deal would only ever be purchasing the amount it needs, demand would never conceivably go beyond supply to raise the price, and if it did there's literally 10 other companies out there (more supply) who are willing to satisfy your demand at a cheaper rate. When it comes to most old medicines supply far outstrips demand both nationally and globally and therefore price can only be determined by what the negotiating body demands, what the company accepts, and the company will accept whatever price gets them any degree of profit or they will get nothing at all and go bankrupt.

I really don't see why it would be difficult to set up a government owned business monopoly. A democracy should be for the people, and a democratic business would be for the people. Humanity doesn't exist under this desire to 'make bank', we all have needs and we all have empathy and compassion (to a degree) and, in an ideal world, we would all be able to work together to create something which isn't generating something to make money, but instead generating it to make all our lives easier.

>>158255

Laws are infallible? Just because it's law makes it right?

>>158718
Good luck coaxing that "voluntary action" out of people who already work 60 hours a week and have insane lives as it is without having to consider competing cost structures presented by 30 different bidders for an asphalt overlay 15 miles away.

>>158720
If only. This is the best we've got until The Borg, though.

>>158726
Do you think that there was a demand for an interstate highway system before it was built? There was not, and yet the tremendous benefits of the interstate are plain to behold.

How do you think that the health care system would fare in a no-holds-barred environment? Do you think that letting most of the under/lower class die off or otherwise be incapacitated would be good for the economy?

>>158785
Only if you count the difficulty moving troops and supplies across the continental US during WW2 as the beginning of demand.

>>158740
>Regardless, most countries have a government set max
This guarantees the price to always be set at that level, even if it could be delivered cheaper. Let's just assume for a moment that the government is getting a better deal than the people can at the moment. What happens when prices fall? Consumption rises. Now this may be a good thing in terms of getting people the pills they need, but what are the resources needed for making the pills? They will be in higher demand, which will raise the prices. Now the government will subsidize it in an attempt to stabilize the prices of the resource which ignores the economic problem of scarcity and will causes shortages and dry up the supply faster.

>>153903

Of course we aren't, but as far as the government is concerned we should be treated as such.

>>158785
>Do you think that there was a demand for an interstate highway system before it was built? There was not, and yet the tremendous benefits of the interstate are plain to behold.
You are assuming the highway system is the best possible outcome. I believe the need for transportation inherent in both business and everyday life would imply the development and growth of complex transportation networks in any society. Having the hubris to declare that the US highway system is the best possible outcome out of infinite possibilities is absurd. I'm not saying the highway system doesn't serve a purpose, but besides the obvious I think it was a ploy to grow oil industries and the MIC.
>How do you think that the health care system would fare in a no-holds-barred environment? Do you think that letting most of the under/lower class die off or otherwise be incapacitated would be good for the economy?
It's sad that you would appeal to emotion in order to further your argument. Just to be clear, I advocate a system that would provide the greatest amount opportunity to the most amount of people. There is no such thing as a utopia, which is ultimately why governments fail.

>>158799
Hey bro, I created that image a while ago.

Your welcome.

Also please spread it everywhere and do your part by creating more images like that.

If you freelance and make like $20k a year, what are the odds, realistically, of being audited if i just, for example, did nothing at all on tax day, or embellished my businesses expenses a bit?

>>159021
You will be audited at some point in your life. When you are, they will see that businesses have recorded payments to you in exchange for services rendered (and they will have those payments on record), and they are going to ask for the income taxes on that money with interest, due at the end of the week.

Just pay your fucking taxes.

>>147812
>take money from one source of people
>give that money to other source of people
it's literally theft.

they decide what to spend that money on.
>muh roads
Sure glad inflation paid for my roads.

>>159045

Never.

>>158935
If you really made that then I thank you. Perhaps if you could tell me some of the sources of the information, specifically about the American version of events, I would be very grateful.

>>159076

>>159184
>i dont know what inflation means
Why arent muh roads upgrading themselves?

>>159187
The image was satire if you didn't catch on.

>>159176
>Perhaps if you could tell me some of the sources of the information
Oh dude,
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

Also check out mises and fee

Real redpilling information about everything.

>>159286
If you didn't reply I was going to type out sections of it until I got a google hit, so thanks for the link. It has all the sources at the bottom, so I'm going to track them down and check it out.

>>159354
>It has all the sources at the bottom, so I'm going to track them down and check it out.
Yeah, np man

Also dude you have to make informative images and post them all over the net to get the word out about liberty.

>>147812
Bump

>>159021
>>159045
Also the penalty interest for not filing is way steeper than the penalty for filing and not paying.

TAXATION = THEFT

>>148016
>>148022
yeah guys lets totally tax married couple with 3 kids making 30k the same as a married couple making 30k without kids. the married couple will totally be okay with being economically punished for contributing out country with positive population growth

>>158726
>i dont use roads to get around
get a fucking load of this guy

>>159974
we are already overpopulated, don't have kids if you cant afford them. Fuck off.

>>159984
lmao loser. you must have missed my broader implied point of 'these fucking plebs dont understand the tax code and what purpose tax laws serve'.

>>159984
>overpopulated

Unless you're India, China or any country in Africa this is definitely not the case.

I like them, public sectors are necessary

>>148410
That's an interesting concept, I feel like if you can choose which sector your income or wealth tax should fund there would be less tax fraud and more political participation.
Obviously a certain percentage always goes to all sectors but you have the freedom of choice to support one

>>158757
Law is a standard that society is built around, If you think you can and then proceed to disregard it just because you have aquired the means to do so you must be removed from society and all your ill gotten gains impounded.

Once again, from great power comes great responsibility. If the nation you are in is good enough to live in, to work in and to get rich in, i.e. exploit all the benefits it gives you but you are then not willing to shoulder the responsibilities laid on you by it then you are nothing but a leech and have no place in that society. You are no better than a wellfare queen.

>>159994
Most people on the flat tax bandwagon don't. I think they mostly haven't bothered understanding the tax code beyond what personally affects them, if that, so they quickly parrot that the whole thing as "too complicated".

15% of money someone would have spent on groceries != 15% of money from the second yacht savings fund. The flat tax screws the poor more than the rich.

>>160136
plenty of other places have a very high concentration of population. Most of europe is reaching its carrying point, as is most of the middle east, indonesia, OZ, and the western US

>>160875
Most of europe is reaching its carrying point, as is most of the middle east, indonesia, OZ, and the western US.
[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure there were people saying this like 200 years ago.

>>160875
>the western US is overpopulated

>>161028
>>160875
>USA
>the size of the fucking moon
>400mil people, roundabout
>overpopulated
>Germany, France, Bong
>together about 200 million
>in a space not even 1/30 of murika
>implying we are overpopulated here
Amerikaner keep your retarded bullshit inside your skull

>>161048
*300 million people in America, whoops, I remembered those numbers badly.

>>161048
>>161028
The Western US is a desert. Most of those places wouldn't even be inhabitable without A/C, and if the trend of warming in the region continues it'll only get worse (I say trend because it's observable; I don't give a shit about climate politics).

They could in theory green the area but it's just such a barren shithole anyways that no one really wants to.

>>162006
>Most of those places wouldn't even be inhabitable without A/C
>mfw kebab
You americans are the biggest pansies I've ever seen. Live in the desert, make the AC cool the office down to 18 degrees so I have to wear a sweater inside not to catch a cold. Goddamn, just live like you're supposed to live in the desert, like everyone else in the desert too all over the world.

>>162006
Yeah that's not a good enough answer.

>>162032
I'm not an American. Most Americans dress like shit in extreme temperatures. When I go to the desert in my country I look like a fucking Muslim.

Captcha: Fillite religious

>>162054
It's true though. The carrying capacity is much lower because it's so arid. They're already dealing with a water crisis. It's not that the area is wanting for space, it's just that the space that they have is too dry to do anything useful with.

>>162066
No it isn't. It totally, completely is not. Show me a study, something that says the US is overpopulated.

>>162066
There's still vast tracts of land in the southern zones, nothern, both coasts. A patch of desert around the Rockies does not invalidate the entire swathes of area the nation has.

>>162074
>No it isn't. It totally, completely is not.
>Show me a study that says the US is overpopulated
I never made that argument. The US is one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world when you consider it's development relative to the size (although I'm from Canada so my country is much worse).

My argument is that the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington) is overpopulated because much of the area they have is completely arid and no one wants anything to do with it. It's also mountainous which means real estate prices are completely FUBAR.

I live on Canada's west coast and it's the same thing here; we at least have the water to sustain our population, though. Most of California does not, and Oregon and Washington are deserts over a good majority of their eastern half.

>>162089
Again, not making that argument. I was only talking about the East coast. I got involved in an ongoing conversation so that may be the cause of the confusion.

>>162091
There are water issues right now with socal but that's partially due to horrible mismanagement.

>>162107
>There are water issues right now with socal but that's partially due to horrible mismanagement.
That's the trouble though; we could green the desert if we wanted to and the carrying capacity would explode, but as it stands now, they're just mining old fossil water.

>>162095
You do know the original argument you're defending is that the world is overpopulated, right?

>>162148
This was the original argument I was involved in. >>161028