|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> A couple weeks ago Lamont Cranston (wasn't it Lamont?) discussed his aggressive moves to avoid taxes. Now TG discusses hers...
>
> With all due respect to those of you who wish to debate the merits of either Lamont's approach or TG's, may I suggest that the real question is much larger than that? At issue is whether the majority, simply by virtue of being the majority, have a right to part of my earnings. By what standard, by what definition of justice, could such a right be thought to exist?
>
> OM
We elect the people who write the tax code. Our country runs on the
principle of majority rule with some limitations on the power of the
majority. However the system which has evolved, which is a real part of
what America is, includes a philosophy about what the government should
do, and how to pay for it. Obviously, not everyone would pick the same
details; a consensus has to be reached via the thing we call democracy.
The government performs a lot of useful functions. Basic research,
environmental regulation to encourage my plating company not to dump
toxic chemicals upstream from your town's water intake, roads, etc.,
etc. It'd be nice to think everyone would just send in a voluntary
contribution to the NIH for cancer research, etc. but it aint gonna
happen, at least not in the amounts needed.
Should you pay a small portion of a lot of services, only some of what
you use? perhaps there is no other efficient way. Further we do that
now in many nongovermental purchases. If you go on a cruise you may
decide to go on the deck but not use the workout machines. Your data
supplier may have a monthly charge whether you are collecting 1 symbol
or 100. I simply don't see how each individual can decide how much to
contribute to the EPA, to NIH (for a research on a disease they may get
in 10 years).
Income transfer is a different matter to some extent. Should you be
able to "opt out" of any future benefits and not pay now? i'm not
sure. Id' tend to say no. Our society has decided that it should
provide a minimum safety blanket for those down on their luck, old,
disabled or whatever. Yes it's sometimes abused. But other times, it
necessary. Consider medical care for the elderly or nursing home care.
Even people with fairly good savings end up on Medicaid. Once again our
society has decided that some income transfer of money should help those
who may have thousands upon thousands of dollars per month in medical
bills. It'd be nice to say, everyone should just save up for such
things. And if *you* have managed to save and plan and are smarter and
therefore richer, shouldn't you get to opt out? But what about the
people that screwed up. Maybe they didn't plan. Or maybe had a setback
not their fault. It's just like medical insurance - group policies work
(more or less) because everyone is in the pot.
Is there a country anywhere that runs on completely market forces, where
you'd pay for all services individually and only ones you want?
Certainly I think most large countries have adopted taxes similar (and
often higher) than ours. If one actually moved to one of these tax
havens, would they charge you no taxes?
My boss has been known to tell my lab colleague and i, "theory's nice,
but it's what comes out of the line that matters", when we say "the
solutions look fine in the lab". I say the same thing here. It's nice
to say, there's no right to tax me. But how are you going to do that
practically. Tell me what happens to the Alzheimer's research which may
be close to finding out what causes this terrible disease. Tell me what
happens to the people on Medicaid?
The IRS has the powers it does, because there's a fair number of
dishonest people in society. Sometimes people find ways to get away
with it. Until the law is changed you do have a legal obligation to pay
taxes (unless you can find a legal exemption). If not you are, at least
in some sense stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying. You
can justify it, the same as a (hopefully rare) dishonest floor broker
and trader could justify shenanigans with your orders, but the effect is
the same.
Its odd because most of us are born in this country. In that sense we
didn't choose it, so we can rail against the system that has evolved.
On the other hand, everyone of us chooses to stay whether by deliberate
choice or default. And everyone of us has a small say in changing the
system if it's bad.
If you say you don't owe taxes I say BS unless you have a legal
loophole. Oh, you can convince yourself of just about anything.
If you say you *shouldn't* owe taxes tell me how you would structure our
society of 250 million people without it. Tell me what the system (or
lack thereof) would look like.
If I like it I might even vote for you if you run!
Conrad Bowers
>
> -- TG wrote:
>
> > I have NO LEGAL obligation to the IRS. They see
> > it like this. I do not see their authority over
> > me... I only have two words to say to the IRS when
> > they call my offshore banker, and so does he, and the
> > first word starts with an F, and the second word
> > starts with an O.
> > They are unclassy, mafia-types, that will ruin my
> > life if I don't pay (if I give them the chance)...
>
> > IS THIS FREEDOM??? is this the price we pay for it?
> > I have a better price, it is called going for it, and
> > getting my money offshore.
|