International taxation - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15061443
Truth To Power wrote:
Why would we tax consensual exchange?



Perhaps because that's the way the world works.

The real world..
#15061450
late wrote:Perhaps because that's the way the world works.

But it isn't. Property taxes, for one, are not a tax on consensual exchange. You are just makin' $#!+ up again to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil because you prefer privilege to liberty, injustice to justice, and evil to good. You literally believe that evil is better than good, and want evil to win and good to lose.
The real world..

I see. So, whatever is currently being done is the only possible way, and nothing can be improved....? Whatever injustice and harm is currently practiced can't be challenged?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
By late
#15061465
Truth To Power wrote:
I see.

So, whatever is currently being done is the only possible way

and nothing can be improved....?

Whatever injustice and harm is currently practiced can't be challenged?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...



No, you don't.

The whole point of the OP is that we have to update international taxes, to do that a different way.

Death and taxes. You don't have to like it, but you do have to lump it. And again, the point of the OP was to 'challenge' the status quo.

Are you daft?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#15061549
TTP, it's a sales tax on corporate revenue. If facbook sells some advertising in the UK it pays tax on that transaction in the UK. There's no oppourtunity for it to pretend it actually happened overseas.
#15061553
Truth To Power wrote:But it isn't. Property taxes, for one, are not a tax on consensual exchange. You are just makin' $#!+ up again to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil because you prefer privilege to liberty, injustice to justice, and evil to good. You literally believe that evil is better than good, and want evil to win and good to lose.


I believe the OP is not here to rationalise privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil. If anything, he is trying to do something in opposite, while I hold these views much more so, no less because whoever punishing them will end up becoming one themselves.

Accumulation of wealth is just like how matter in the universe accumulates into stars, planets, galaxies, and of course, everything around us. Containment is the only practical way to minimise its side effects.

On the other hand, I am sure International Taxation is a proposal to move towards minimising evil, although I understand that we can debate on whether it is a practical means.
#15062002
late wrote:No, you don't.

Yes, I do.
The whole point of the OP is that we have to update international taxes, to do that a different way.

My point is that it would be better to stop taxing international transactions entirely because it is unjust, economically harmful, and impractical.
Death and taxes. You don't have to like it, but you do have to lump it.

"Shut up and get back on the treadmill!"

That about it?
And again, the point of the OP was to 'challenge' the status quo.

Not in any substantive way.
#15062003
AFAIK wrote:TTP, it's a sales tax on corporate revenue. If facbook sells some advertising in the UK it pays tax on that transaction in the UK. There's no oppourtunity for it to pretend it actually happened overseas.

I know what it is. Why should such a transaction be taxed? Where is the deprivation imposed on others? Where is the commensurate societal cost?
#15062005
Patrickov wrote:I believe the OP is not here to rationalise privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil.

Then why is he doing so?
If anything, he is trying to do something in opposite,

Then why does he attack indisputable justice and defend indisputable greed, privilege and parasitism?
while I hold these views much more so, no less because whoever punishing them will end up becoming one themselves.

Is that what happened when slavery was abolished? The abolitionists became slave owners?
Accumulation of wealth is just like how matter in the universe accumulates into stars, planets, galaxies, and of course, everything around us.

NONSENSE. In an economy without privilege, large accumulations of wealth would tend to dissipate. The economic arrangements that have enabled the vicious circle of rapid, unstoppable accumulation of unearned wealth in the hands of the 1% through ownership of privilege are POLITICAL CHOICES.
Containment is the only practical way to minimise its side effects.

No. The only practical way is to stop it by prioritizing liberty, justice and prosperity over the narrow financial interests of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.
On the other hand, I am sure International Taxation is a proposal to move towards minimising evil, although I understand that we can debate on whether it is a practical means.

No. Privilege is government taking the side of evil, so any pretense that anything is a better tax base than privilege only serves evil.
By late
#15062013
Truth To Power wrote:
My point is that it would be better to stop taxing international transactions entirely because it is unjust, economically harmful, and impractical.



You'd have better luck wishing for pink unicorns.

Back on this planet, the topic is how the taxes need to be structured.
#15062245
late wrote:You'd have better luck wishing for pink unicorns.

That's what the enemies of liberty, justice and truth have told every advocate of progress.
Back on this planet, the topic is how the taxes need to be structured.

That is a waste of time and effort that would be better spent pursuing just and efficient methods of taxation.
By late
#15062249
Truth To Power wrote:
That is a waste of time and effort that would be better spent pursuing just and efficient methods of taxation.



I'd like a pink unicorn steak, medium rare.
By late
#15062275
Truth To Power wrote:
Why do you hate liberty, justice and prosperity? Why do you prefer evil to good? Inquiring minds want to know.



If I wanted to take this further (and I don't) I'd want to know which kooky fake economics you fell for.

As it is, reality works.
#15062293
late wrote:If I wanted to take this further (and I don't) I'd want to know which kooky fake economics you fell for.

Not fake and kooky modern mainstream neoclassical economics, the biggest scientific hoax in history. IMO economics is in much the same stage of development as pre-Newtonian mechanics, and there is not yet a school of economics that can be considered the foundation of a genuine empirical science of economics.
As it is, reality works.

Modern mainstream neoclassical economics works for rich, greedy, privileged parasites and the lickspittle, liar-for-hire economists whose careers they fund, as it was designed to do, and for no one else.
By late
#15062726
Truth To Power wrote:
Not fake and kooky modern mainstream neoclassical economics, the biggest scientific hoax in history. IMO economics is in much the same stage of development as pre-Newtonian mechanics, and there is not yet a school of economics that can be considered the foundation of a genuine empirical science of economics.

Modern mainstream neoclassical economics works for rich, greedy, privileged parasites and the lickspittle, liar-for-hire economists whose careers they fund, as it was designed to do, and for no one else.



Despite what you claim, you didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You clearly have ideas about economics, but you are apparently too embarrassed to tell us what they are.

This started in Renaissance Italy, because of international trade. Capitalism and the Modern World happened because of international trade. Now we have to make some adjustments to how we handle international trade.

I don't know what flavor of kookiness you are selling, but I don't see anyone buying.
#15063074
late wrote:You clearly have ideas about economics, but you are apparently too embarrassed to tell us what they are.

It has to start with valid definitions, including the definition of economics itself. Neoclassical economics accepts accounting definitions that have no economic validity, putatively because economic data are compiled by accountants according to accounting definitions, but actually because those definitions remove the possibility of distinguishing earned from unearned income and wealth.
This started in Renaissance Italy, because of international trade. Capitalism and the Modern World happened because of international trade. Now we have to make some adjustments to how we handle international trade.

No, international trade had gone on for thousands of years before capitalism emerged. IMO three key innovations led to capitalism:

1. The Roman innovation of appropriating land as private property, which created the dispossessed, landless working class that could be treated like slaves without the bother of actually owning them;
2. The emergence of credit-based banking using double-entry accounting in Renaissance Italy, formalized with the foundation of the Bank of England in 1694;
3. Newtonian mechanics, which enabled design of functional mass-production machinery and effective use of non-animal energy sources.
I don't know what flavor of kookiness you are selling, but I don't see anyone buying.

Uncomfortable truth is never popular.
By late
#15063081
Truth To Power wrote:
Blah, blah, blah...



So, all BS aside, what are you?

Vienna, gold bug, mercantilist??

I'm gonna guess mercantilist, from the sound of it.
#15063095
late wrote:So, all BS aside, what are you?

Honest.
Vienna, gold bug, mercantilist??

I'm gonna guess mercantilist, from the sound of it.

Guess again. The closest would be geolibertarian, but unlike many geolibertarians, I'm not a knee-jerk opponent of government spending on desirable public services and infrastructure. I wouldn't mind a bigger government role in the economy to patch market failures, as long as it was democratically accountable and funded by just, efficient, and consensual revenue sources, including Pigovian taxes.
#15063099
IMHO tax is an antiquated way of generating revenue hardly better than the primitive raiding from which it evolved. If govs have valuable services then charge an honest service fee from the users, like civilised people do.
By late
#15063108
SolarCross wrote:
IMHO tax is an antiquated way of generating revenue hardly better than the primitive raiding from which it evolved. If govs have valuable services then charge an honest service fee from the users, like civilised people do.



You'll need much larger jails.
So how deadly is it?

@Sivad has already explained his argument in this[…]

That comes from an incorrect translation. The sin[…]

@Julian658 They are always deployed. No they […]

Coronavirus '33'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrCsMPTZbIk