If that's the type of mafia you were referring to, then what point were you trying to make in comparing it with government? That even an entity commonly viewed as bad can do good and useful things? I agree that today's legal system is somewhat out of whack. The government tries way too hard to stop people from doing things that harm no one, and not hard enough to prevent individuals from committing more destructive acts. And in exchange for those benefits, you can say goodbye to public firefighters and police. There me private replacements that crop up, but with fewer people actually paying for their services, they will have to charge people more than they are paying today just to maintain current operating capabilities. Plus, as private organizations, we can expect that they will also want to make a profit. So get ready to pay a lot more for your police and firefighter protection, and if you don't have enough money to pay for it, well then sorry, you're just plum out of luck. Also say goodbye to the public court systems. Say what you will about their flaws, but I don't believe you can deny that there is a benefit to having a single set of rules that everyone is bound by. If you think that prisons today have become a business, just wait until they no longer have to follow any rules. Also, after all our current roads and bridges fall down, they are all going to be replaced by toll roads (assuming they are replaced at all). So get ready to wait in line wherever you drive to. And if you can't afford it, well too bad, I guess you're walking. And regulations, yup, those will be gone too. And after you're poisoned, you wont even be able to sue. Best you could do if you had money, would be to hire a band of mercenaries to protect you from everything and everyone. Just hope that the other guy doesn't hire more and or better mercenaries See, this is the problem with anarchy (well one of them), people are going to form these governments as you said, and eventually, they are going to realize that their government is not big enough to accomplish what they want. They will combine with, acquire, or take over other organizations, until soon enough we are left with only one or two centralized governing bodies. We will essentially be right back where we started, with a government that might not even be as good as the one we have today. A countless number of people would have suffered through the government-less phases, and for what? BTW, homeowners associations today operate under state government law. They do no have for instance, any "legal use of force". And really they don't need it. If the state and federal governments were to go away however, its reasonable to believe that that would all change. -Meta
At it's most basic, taxation is the theft by a King from his subjects to finance his lifestyle and armies. From this it has become merely a matter of choosing whom is the most benevolent theif/master/oppressor. The Constitution is a document created to lessen the impact of one despot for the common defense against him and the consequent governance of the people who have thrown off the dictator. In this sense we have one of the few systems established to ostensibly fight against this theft. However it has become corrupted into a cronyist mechanism for theft. The TEA party is here to reverse that trend. Against unionist and corporate cronyism both. I hope that was clear enough for you folks.
I don't know where you live, but here in the U.S., we don't have kings. Why do you think taxation is theft? What is it that gets taxed anyway? Money right? Coin and or paper currency. And who creates that currency? The government right? -Meta
No, that's not right. The IRS taxes all income. Whether you receive income in U.S. currency, foreign currency, gold, salt, product or trade.
the IRS does not tax all income, how do corporations get to keep all of their profits made overseas? if we taxed offshore profit then that would be true
the government defines felony under the jurisdiction of law, if law approves of theft then taxation cannot be legally defined as theft but legally termed as taxation
Yes, that was my point. The law doesn't approve of theft and it's the law that defines felonies... but despite your jumbled rewording you seem to be getting the basic point I made. Did you have a point of your own to offer?
They don't have to pay taxes on money they don't receive. Internationals sometimes choose not to have their foreign subsidiaries or partners transfer funds to their U.S. corporation. It's not U.S. income if it's owned by a foreign company and doesn't come into the U.S. -- although the revenue is income in Germany or some other country (and therefore taxed by that country). U.S. laws apply to the U.S. ... that surprises you? Your question does bring up and interesting issue though. As companies like GE are increasingly setting up factories in foreign countries, selling the product there, and keeping the profits in foreign companies... is continuing to raise U.S. taxes going to increase U.S. revenue or just increasingly drive more business (and the opportunities, jobs, and taxes that go along with it) into other jurisdictions?
according to the definition of theft from the dictionary for something to be defined as theft it must first be classified as felonious. government decides what is felonious so if it does not believe taxation is theft taxation cannot be legally referred to as theft also the point of taxation being theft is moot as the two are not interchangeable under the rules of terminology
A truly convoluted way of saying: So, I guess your answer is "no." You don't actually have a point of your own and simply want to repeat what I said ... less clearly.
those companies and their capital were made possible by the United States and its market if they leave they are subject to expatriation taxes as well as being barred from further profiting from the US market. corporations are profiting from the rich American market but hiding their profits in international companies and that money should be subjected to taxation and serve the interests of the US via infrastructure, social security, welfare etc...
no there is a clear distinction between theft and taxation, there are no feelings or emotions involved they are two seperate things which was not the point of that post
No, we are not talking about companies owned by the United States. Again, no. The whole point is the revenue is generated in foreign markets.
So you disagree with my point that taxation is not theft because theft is the "unlawful taking of property"... and taxes are not unlawful?
Actually, I believe I was the first person to make that point in this topic. BTW, with regards to confusing terminology, when I say something is taxed, what I really mean to say is that something gets collected by the government. That is, if I say the government taxes money ($100), what I really mean is that the government collects money ($100). I know its not exactly the right thing to say and that it can be confusing. It is a habit of mine that I am trying to break. -Meta
late edit not ownership but those companies are made possible by the US market and this country why do they think they can avoid paying taxes to help this country by hiding money in offshore companies?
no disagree with the way it was presented as if it there was some sort of relation with taxes and theft and that is not true they are two totally different terms and mean two totally different things
No money is hidden. I don't think you understand the process. These companies see revenue in a foreign partner or subsidiary. They simply choose not to transfer the revenue they produce in those foreign markets to a U.S. based company. The downside is they don't have access to the funds in the U.S., the upside is they aren't receiving it as U.S. income so there are no U.S. taxes on it. Yes, this is tax avoidance but so is a person choosing to deduct the standard deduction from their income or deposit part of their salary into a tax protected retirement plan. Every tax return with even a single deduction on it is an example of someone avoiding paying taxes to help this country. Tax avoidance is completely legal and done without hiding anything from the IRS. If you had any income and filed a tax return you almost certainly avoided paying taxes to help this country.
Tax avoidance is unpatriotic although its still legal for business it is simply hiding money in offshore accounts due to loopholes created for wealthy businesses Similar loopholes have helped wealthy individuals hide money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes but that changed as the government is going after swiss and kayman island accounts US companies have the luxury of making money overseas because they were able to first create successful companies on US soil, they have a patriotic obligation to pay taxes on income on overseas profits even if it is not stated in law yet. Unless they repatriate and uproot all financial interests from the US market this obligation remains
The bolded parts of the post below indicate a relation with taxation and theft with its use of emotion in an effort to mislead the reader into thinking taxation shares a correlation with theft and it presents somewhat of a bias Taxation cannot feel like theft because it is not theft as they have two different meanings
You have no idea what you're talking about. Hiding U.S. income from the IRS, in the Kayman's or elsewhere, is tax evasion. That's illegal. There is no "hiding" in the tax avoidance of choosing not to import revenue earned by overseas companies. Choosing not to transfer money to a U.S. company is no different than choosing to receive a payment in January rather than December or having a percentage of your income deposited in a tax free retirement account. These are simply informed money management decisions that may legally minimize your tax burden. If you filed a tax return last year and claimed even a single deduction, you practiced tax avoidance. Characterize your own actions as unpatriotic if you wish, but you are not the arbiter of patriotism and it is unreasonable for you to label anyone else as unpatriotic for simply exercising their legal rights.
No, it is recognition of the original posters position. I asserted that while taxation might feel like theft "it's not literally theft." I attempted to acknowledge and separate the emotional impact of having the product of your efforts seized by threat of force (that impact is often why folks characterize it as theft) with the literal definition of the word. A definition I then provided. I even directed the reader to the essential requirement in the definition that theft requires the taking to be unlawful. I also provided an analogy. Showing that not all seizing of property is theft, just as not all killing is murder -- the distinction in both cases is that it only becomes theft or murder when it is unlawful. Please don't claim to know my intent when you apparently can't even be bothered to read the words as clearly stated as "it's not literally theft." You're seriously going to try and tell other people what they're allowed to feel? wow.
no its legally hiding money to avoid paying taxes they can choose to bring that money here they don't want to help our country because their cheap skates looking for a free ride from the tax code its pretty much a loophole that needs to be corrected, everyone including corporations who are people from the recent supreme court decision must pay taxes on any income foreign or domestic its unpatriotic for them to starve the US federal budget and it won't go on for much longer those odds are dwindling by the day
I'm betting far more taxes are avoided by workers who use deductions to reduce their tax burden than are avoided by corporations not claiming foreign income. Assuming each of the approximately 240 million wage-earners only claimed the standard deduction, they dodged over $280 Billion in taxes. I wonder how much businesses dodged.
