4 ms·

Spending is only good if it is wise. If you tell a company "sorry, you have to spend it now" it is equivalent of telling you "sorry, I don't care if you don't l

by snitko 11y ago

Spending is only good if it is wise. If you tell a company "sorry, you have to spend it now" it is equivalent of telling you "sorry, I don't care if you don't like any house on the market now, you'll have to buy now, you can't wait". That's no freedom, but slavery. Only when you have a choice of hoarding vs spending, then you help the economy to truly grow by providing everyone with the best products and services. Incentivizing spending at all costs simply means creating more useless things instead of making technological breakthroughs and improving quality of life. When you say "you don't trust Apple" it doesn't matter. Apple made its money honestly. It didn't steal from or rob anyone. More importantly, simply because Apple made so much money, it must mean it knows damn well how to invest it.

cm3 11y ago
At least in my post I said "incentivize" and not "punish" or anything to the same extent. One big issue is with their shareholders whose mindset may not allow increased spending and less dead digital cash.
Kliment 11y ago
Honestly? By evading taxes they are stealing from hundreds of millions of people.
- snitko 11y ago
  That's your opinion. I think taxation is extortion. Who's to say I'm not entitled to my point of view?
  - cm3 11y ago
    Ignoring fairness of certain taxes and issues with tax laws in general, taxes are the rent one has to pay for living in a place. If you don't have income you usually won't pay most taxes at all. It's arguable how much of the tax system works and what parts are just plain broken and favor certain interest groups, but that's an implementation detail. If you visit places where much of the population evades taxes, you'll find that the state of roads and infrastructure in general is worse than someplace with people paying their taxes. I'm with you if you argue that tax laws are unfair and do not reflect the live circumstances of most people. If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea, etc. I suppose you want more of a pay-what-you-use society where, if you just stay at one place most of the time, you pay considerably less taxes. Whether that can work universally I don't know.
    - snitko 11y ago
      > If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into your smartphone every time you call someone these days? And yet it's almost impossible to live without a smartphone today, so people buy them and pay for the plans. But, but, they do have a choice of which operator to use (and, frankly, US is the worst example here, Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect, so it's cheaper and simpler there). Do you see where I'm going with this example? Yes, I only want to pay for things which I use. And have a choice of, for example, which school to send my kids to (if any) without having to pay the same price. I want things provided on the market, which generally makes them cheaper, not more expensive. Almost any example of a market you take, where government once heavily regulated or provided a product or service, but then deregulated it and invited private companies to fill in - you will find that the price fell and quality rose, giving more people (not less) access to the said service or product. I don't want to pay for: 1) wars 2) torture 3) police abuse 4) government mismanagement 5) that guy who has no job and has a gambling addiction 6) that guy who smokes 3 packs a day and demands free healthcare 7) politicians flying big jets and employing goons with guns to protect them.
      - cm3 11y ago
        You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. I totally get why you'd not want to finance many things, and I'm with you on most of those, but the world isn't that simple and human behavior/psychology surely isn't. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) Totally with you here. The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up. This is totally different in a company. Steve Jobs got kicked out but that won't happen to a politician let alone made to pay for losses created. This needs to start with the people. First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. They should just use Hollywood stars for that and buy their t-shirts or whatnot instead. I'd argue that feudalism still exists in the minds of most if you look at the way governors, ministers (not the religious kind) are treated with a red carpet, awe and looking up to. They're representatives voted into an office to manage things and are still just nothing more than a city clerk but with more decision power in the chain. People have a fascination with those in power and won't stop living in virtual feudalism because of that. Also that a US candidate has to look for campaign money and cannot focus on the agenda (s)he is trying to get votes for is a huge defect in the system. This is less of a problem in other countries. The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. We could be living on Europa by now if we spent just 0.1% less on wars. 5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society.

by snitko 11y ago

cm3 11y ago

At least in my post I said "incentivize" and not "punish" or anything to the same extent. One big issue is with their shareholders whose mindset may not allow increased spending and less dead digital cash.

Kliment 11y ago

Honestly? By evading taxes they are stealing from hundreds of millions of people.

snitko 11y ago
That's your opinion. I think taxation is extortion. Who's to say I'm not entitled to my point of view?
- cm3 11y ago
  Ignoring fairness of certain taxes and issues with tax laws in general, taxes are the rent one has to pay for living in a place. If you don't have income you usually won't pay most taxes at all. It's arguable how much of the tax system works and what parts are just plain broken and favor certain interest groups, but that's an implementation detail. If you visit places where much of the population evades taxes, you'll find that the state of roads and infrastructure in general is worse than someplace with people paying their taxes. I'm with you if you argue that tax laws are unfair and do not reflect the live circumstances of most people. If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea, etc. I suppose you want more of a pay-what-you-use society where, if you just stay at one place most of the time, you pay considerably less taxes. Whether that can work universally I don't know.
  - snitko 11y ago
    > If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into your smartphone every time you call someone these days? And yet it's almost impossible to live without a smartphone today, so people buy them and pay for the plans. But, but, they do have a choice of which operator to use (and, frankly, US is the worst example here, Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect, so it's cheaper and simpler there). Do you see where I'm going with this example? Yes, I only want to pay for things which I use. And have a choice of, for example, which school to send my kids to (if any) without having to pay the same price. I want things provided on the market, which generally makes them cheaper, not more expensive. Almost any example of a market you take, where government once heavily regulated or provided a product or service, but then deregulated it and invited private companies to fill in - you will find that the price fell and quality rose, giving more people (not less) access to the said service or product. I don't want to pay for: 1) wars 2) torture 3) police abuse 4) government mismanagement 5) that guy who has no job and has a gambling addiction 6) that guy who smokes 3 packs a day and demands free healthcare 7) politicians flying big jets and employing goons with guns to protect them.
    - cm3 11y ago
      You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. I totally get why you'd not want to finance many things, and I'm with you on most of those, but the world isn't that simple and human behavior/psychology surely isn't. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) Totally with you here. The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up. This is totally different in a company. Steve Jobs got kicked out but that won't happen to a politician let alone made to pay for losses created. This needs to start with the people. First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. They should just use Hollywood stars for that and buy their t-shirts or whatnot instead. I'd argue that feudalism still exists in the minds of most if you look at the way governors, ministers (not the religious kind) are treated with a red carpet, awe and looking up to. They're representatives voted into an office to manage things and are still just nothing more than a city clerk but with more decision power in the chain. People have a fascination with those in power and won't stop living in virtual feudalism because of that. Also that a US candidate has to look for campaign money and cannot focus on the agenda (s)he is trying to get votes for is a huge defect in the system. This is less of a problem in other countries. The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. We could be living on Europa by now if we spent just 0.1% less on wars. 5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society.