4 ms·

Well, it's up to England's citizens to change the efficiency of England's government. Google is doing great things. By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing or

Well, it's up to England's citizens to change the efficiency of England's government. Google is doing great things. By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. It doesn't matter whether it would do better with the money. I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. My job is to work to make sure that the US government does better with my tax money. Not to deny the government the money. If I don't pay, someone else will have to. And that's not okay. It's like saying I need your sandwich more than you do. I'm hungrier, I could make better use of it, therefor I should get your sandwich. Even if I could legally take your sandwich. It's still not okay. It's your sandwich! If I take it, you go hungry.

lionhearted 16y ago
> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England taking money from Google would mean less infrastructure and research out there in the world, meaning common citizens would be forced to pay more for services instead of Google's free services, or make do with less. > I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. I believe it should be. Really, I mean that, I think taxes on productive labor are evil. Really, actually, unmitigated evil. I'm not against taxes, I'd actually be in favor for high property taxes divided split between federal, state, and local, which would encourage economy of space, reduce waste, and discourage real estate speculation while encouraging development. High taxes are okay. But taxing earned income, no way. Demanding a percent of honest labor to me seems no different than claiming ownership over a percent of a man. I think it's tyranny, and that in the future people will look horrified at income taxes the way we look at feudalism, serfdom, slavery, and other forced claims over a man's labor. But I understand I'm currently in the minority on that point of view.
- dbingham 16y ago
  What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services? To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
    - Retric 16y ago
      Edit: Fixed, sorry had a bad copy and paste. You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (banks, phone lines), or even workers or customers educated by the public school system. Ask yourself why would IBM pay for such a thing? Well they have customers that use land and an educated workforce. And what about your bank? How do they keep from being robbed? Heck, what’s to stop your bank or IBM from simply shooting you vs. letting you keep the money? Face it, without a government service there is no way to generate extract and keep 250 million in value. Because even Drug Lords depend on governments banning their drugs. PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
      - lionhearted 16y ago
        Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more: Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes. Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be government provided as that causes all sorts of problems like we've recently seen, but that's a side discussion), schools - those are all local-based services. You'd pay for where you were using them, when you were using them. > PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship. Totally unnecessary and counterproductive to a decent reasonable discussion.
jasonlotito 16y ago
Your sandwich analogy is backwards. In your example, you would be the government, and it's Google's sandwich. If the government wants Google to pay taxes, they should enact laws that establish that. It's as simple as that. > I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. At least, it's not your choice to make yourself. When you agree to live in a certain place, you generally have to play by the rules.
- dbingham 16y ago
  In the analogy it's not the government who's sandwich Google is taking -- its the average citizen. The government is just a proxy organization representing the citizens in a much more direct way than a company represents its stock holders.
- dbingham 16y ago
  A loophole by definition is a problem with a law that allows people to break the spirit of the law while not breaking the letter of it. Writing laws is like programming. There are bugs. But its even harder than programming because fixing the bugs isn't as simple as finding the spot in the code and releasing a patch. It means bringing the laws back up for discussion and debating with 100+ other people about the best way to fix the bug. And not all those people actually have fixing the bug in mind. So it isn't as simple as the government enacting laws to close the loopholes. By taking advantage of the loopholes like this Google is acting like black hat hackers who take advantage of the bugs. They are taking advantage of the bug in the government's code that allows them to use the government's services with out paying for them.
adbge 16y ago
> It's like saying I need your sandwich more than you do. I'm hungrier, I could make better use of it, therefore I should get your sandwich. Even if I could legally take your sandwich. It's still not okay. It's your sandwich! If I take it, you go hungry. Really, the same reasoning could be applied to the government with regards to taxation.
- dbingham 16y ago
  See comment below. In the analogy "I" am Google and "you" is the average citizen who has to pay more as a result of Google's tax avoidance. Not the government.
philwelch 16y ago
So you've never claimed tax deductions or used a 401(k) or IRA, or ever had health insurance from your employer? Those are all legal ways of "dodging" taxes. If the government wants to collect more tax, the government can close tax incentives. There's no individual duty not to exploit tax incentives if they're open to you.
- dbingham 16y ago
  Incentive deductions are very different from loopholes. Loopholes are bugs in the law. Sometimes put their intentionally by people who don't agree with the spirit of the law, sometimes there accidentally. But either way, they go against the spirit of law and are the equivalent of a software bug. Incentives were put there intentionally and using them is following the spirit of the law.

lionhearted 16y ago

> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England taking money from Google would mean less infrastructure and research out there in the world, meaning common citizens would be forced to pay more for services instead of Google's free services, or make do with less. > I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. I believe it should be. Really, I mean that, I think taxes on productive labor are evil. Really, actually, unmitigated evil. I'm not against taxes, I'd actually be in favor for high property taxes divided split between federal, state, and local, which would encourage economy of space, reduce waste, and discourage real estate speculation while encouraging development. High taxes are okay. But taxing earned income, no way. Demanding a percent of honest labor to me seems no different than claiming ownership over a percent of a man. I think it's tyranny, and that in the future people will look horrified at income taxes the way we look at feudalism, serfdom, slavery, and other forced claims over a man's labor. But I understand I'm currently in the minority on that point of view.

dbingham 16y ago
What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services? To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Edit: Fixed, sorry had a bad copy and paste. You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (banks, phone lines), or even workers or customers educated by the public school system. Ask yourself why would IBM pay for such a thing? Well they have customers that use land and an educated workforce. And what about your bank? How do they keep from being robbed? Heck, what’s to stop your bank or IBM from simply shooting you vs. letting you keep the money? Face it, without a government service there is no way to generate extract and keep 250 million in value. Because even Drug Lords depend on governments banning their drugs. PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more: Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes. Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be government provided as that causes all sorts of problems like we've recently seen, but that's a side discussion), schools - those are all local-based services. You'd pay for where you were using them, when you were using them. > PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship. Totally unnecessary and counterproductive to a decent reasonable discussion.

jasonlotito 16y ago

Your sandwich analogy is backwards. In your example, you would be the government, and it's Google's sandwich. If the government wants Google to pay taxes, they should enact laws that establish that. It's as simple as that. > I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. At least, it's not your choice to make yourself. When you agree to live in a certain place, you generally have to play by the rules.

dbingham 16y ago
In the analogy it's not the government who's sandwich Google is taking -- its the average citizen. The government is just a proxy organization representing the citizens in a much more direct way than a company represents its stock holders.
dbingham 16y ago
A loophole by definition is a problem with a law that allows people to break the spirit of the law while not breaking the letter of it. Writing laws is like programming. There are bugs. But its even harder than programming because fixing the bugs isn't as simple as finding the spot in the code and releasing a patch. It means bringing the laws back up for discussion and debating with 100+ other people about the best way to fix the bug. And not all those people actually have fixing the bug in mind. So it isn't as simple as the government enacting laws to close the loopholes. By taking advantage of the loopholes like this Google is acting like black hat hackers who take advantage of the bugs. They are taking advantage of the bug in the government's code that allows them to use the government's services with out paying for them.

adbge 16y ago

> It's like saying I need your sandwich more than you do. I'm hungrier, I could make better use of it, therefore I should get your sandwich. Even if I could legally take your sandwich. It's still not okay. It's your sandwich! If I take it, you go hungry. Really, the same reasoning could be applied to the government with regards to taxation.

dbingham 16y ago
See comment below. In the analogy "I" am Google and "you" is the average citizen who has to pay more as a result of Google's tax avoidance. Not the government.

philwelch 16y ago

So you've never claimed tax deductions or used a 401(k) or IRA, or ever had health insurance from your employer? Those are all legal ways of "dodging" taxes. If the government wants to collect more tax, the government can close tax incentives. There's no individual duty not to exploit tax incentives if they're open to you.

dbingham 16y ago
Incentive deductions are very different from loopholes. Loopholes are bugs in the law. Sometimes put their intentionally by people who don't agree with the spirit of the law, sometimes there accidentally. But either way, they go against the spirit of law and are the equivalent of a software bug. Incentives were put there intentionally and using them is following the spirit of the law.