3 ms·

"I don't believe the Fire Department is being as efficient as they can be, therefore I won't chip in my portion to help fund them." That's puerile and childish

"I don't believe the Fire Department is being as efficient as they can be, therefore I won't chip in my portion to help fund them." That's puerile and childish. You're not being principled, you're being greedy. You don't like its efficiencies? Help fix it. You don't want any of its services? Let's see how long you last without them, especially the police and military protecting that wealth. It's all a social contract and you don't get the services but get to opt out of paying for them because you got more and realized that you're a greedy, shitty little scumbag.

giantg2 6y ago
He's not saying that he wants to get the services without paying. He's saying he wants to move to another country to keep more of his money. If you can pay 10% for the same services (or the level of services that you want) in one country, but it would cost your 45% in your current country, then why not switch? There's nothing wrong with that. You're still paying your share under the social contract.
- chefkoch 6y ago
  He already got the services all his life. Or do you think he could have started his company without education, infrastructure and security?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 6y ago
    You're assuming his education was publically funded - it might not have been. Can you say that he required the infrastructure or security to be successful? So you're saying that immigration/emigration should be illegal? I believe people should be able to move if they want to if they follow the process. It's important that people can live under a government that they support and believe to be the best one for them. It sounds like he has been paying his taxes all these years. So he has been contributing his fair share. Don't forget, him leaving means one fewer person for the government to provide services for. Knowing that healthcare costs increase as one gets older, this could be a large amount if healthcare is something his taxes cover. Honestly, the logic that he owes society money for the past services is pretty convoluted. The government isn't keeping a tab of what people owe if they ever make more money. When then, would someone have paid their dues to society to earn the freedom to move? The people currently making money are paying current taxes. Are the kids in school paying taxes? No, it's the property owners, some of whom might not even have kids. Tax schemes are designed to collect the amount that society needs as an aggregate. They try to be logical or socially acceptable in how they are collected. Society has not implemented a tax scheme saying you owe more for previous services because your income went up. They could, but they haven't.
  - Denniz 6y ago
    That is a point of course. I'm thankful for the education I got here. No question. On the other hand I already payed a lot of taxes. And my father retired few years ago and is treated really bad after he worked more then 20 years. Actually he is treated like he never worked at all. So that is what I mean regarding tax policy. In my opinion you can't say someone isn't paying his fair share if he pay lets say 400k on a 10% rate. He is still contributing much more then the average and I think he should not be treated like a "criminal".
    - david927 6y ago
      I didn't mean to be judgmental. It's your decision.
      - Denniz 6y ago
        Thanks a lot! Yes, guess a hard one as well.
    - chefkoch 6y ago
      Another option might be to just move the company, so you only pay the higher income tax in the money you draw from the company. But i know it's easy to talk about ethics if it's not your own money.
      - Denniz 6y ago
        Not that easy. CFC rules. Actually if you want be in control it is very difficult to make it legal.

giantg2 6y ago

He's not saying that he wants to get the services without paying. He's saying he wants to move to another country to keep more of his money. If you can pay 10% for the same services (or the level of services that you want) in one country, but it would cost your 45% in your current country, then why not switch? There's nothing wrong with that. You're still paying your share under the social contract.

chefkoch 6y ago
He already got the services all his life. Or do you think he could have started his company without education, infrastructure and security?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 6y ago
  You're assuming his education was publically funded - it might not have been. Can you say that he required the infrastructure or security to be successful? So you're saying that immigration/emigration should be illegal? I believe people should be able to move if they want to if they follow the process. It's important that people can live under a government that they support and believe to be the best one for them. It sounds like he has been paying his taxes all these years. So he has been contributing his fair share. Don't forget, him leaving means one fewer person for the government to provide services for. Knowing that healthcare costs increase as one gets older, this could be a large amount if healthcare is something his taxes cover. Honestly, the logic that he owes society money for the past services is pretty convoluted. The government isn't keeping a tab of what people owe if they ever make more money. When then, would someone have paid their dues to society to earn the freedom to move? The people currently making money are paying current taxes. Are the kids in school paying taxes? No, it's the property owners, some of whom might not even have kids. Tax schemes are designed to collect the amount that society needs as an aggregate. They try to be logical or socially acceptable in how they are collected. Society has not implemented a tax scheme saying you owe more for previous services because your income went up. They could, but they haven't.
- Denniz 6y ago
  That is a point of course. I'm thankful for the education I got here. No question. On the other hand I already payed a lot of taxes. And my father retired few years ago and is treated really bad after he worked more then 20 years. Actually he is treated like he never worked at all. So that is what I mean regarding tax policy. In my opinion you can't say someone isn't paying his fair share if he pay lets say 400k on a 10% rate. He is still contributing much more then the average and I think he should not be treated like a "criminal".
  - david927 6y ago
    I didn't mean to be judgmental. It's your decision.
    - Denniz 6y ago
      Thanks a lot! Yes, guess a hard one as well.
  - chefkoch 6y ago
    Another option might be to just move the company, so you only pay the higher income tax in the money you draw from the company. But i know it's easy to talk about ethics if it's not your own money.
    - Denniz 6y ago
      Not that easy. CFC rules. Actually if you want be in control it is very difficult to make it legal.