Apple's Tax Hypocrisy

[maverikv]

Schiff was wrong on his timing but s crash is coming. You can't spend this much and get away scott free. The price is bankruptcy and/or inflation but since government is lies about inflation you won't see it until its too late.

Schiff was wrong on the timing and the type of crash he was predicting, so he was wrong.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You know taxes are at record lows, right?

Theft being at record low just means there's still theft.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

If you want to live in society it has a price.

Taxation is not that price. Taxation is theft.You cannot have a decent society while there is an agency which institutionalizes theft and calls that ok.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Because many people don't care about the common good and only themselves. Put more plainly: they're greedy. Its the same old story that has played out time and again throughout history.

Ah, the old "common good" chestnut that can be so easily used against those who wield it. To wit: it is for the common good that all women should allow any man who wants to to have sex with her. As you can see: the "common good" argument opens up a can of worms which, I'm sure, you want no part of.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

What a bunch of gibberish. The keynesian economic model is incompatible with mankind? Do you even know what keynesians believe?

Hint: look at what's happening in Europe right now. Look at the new deal. Keynesian economics is right.

And yet it's so utterly wrong that it almost makes Marx' nonsense look like brilliance.

You can't just spend what you don't have to get yourself out of spending what you didn't have in the first place. Nor can you just spend to "boost aggregate demand" and think that just because "we're all dead in the long run" that it won't have serious repercussions later on. The laws of economics are not malleable. The laws of economics do not bend to political whim. We are not driven by "animal spirits".

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Because the market is always distorted by one thing or another. Taxes and government regulations are just the means of the common laborer to have the scales tipped a bit in his favor so things aren't quite so unfair/awful for him/her by use of the vote.

That's the myth that you've bought into (your admission re: theory/current fact notwithstanding). Problem is, of course: that it is just a myth. Taxation is an extortive means by which the coercive expropriating territorial monopoly (government) oppresses and violates the rights of those claimed to be under the protection of said coercive monopoly.

What your argument (and the argument of many others) boils down to is twofold: Might Makes Right (the government is mighty, so it is right) and The Ends Justify The Means (something I like is being done by government, so it is ok for taxation to be used to obtain that end).

I do hope you see the inherent problems with both of those stances, and that you're intellectually honest enough to admit that, yes, your argument requires the use of those stances.

 

[maverikv]

And yet it's so utterly wrong that it almost makes Marx' nonsense look like brilliance.

You can't just spend what you don't have to get yourself out of spending what you didn't have in the first place. Nor can you just spend to "boost aggregate demand" and think that just because "we're all dead in the long run" that it won't have serious repercussions later on. The laws of economics are not malleable. The laws of economics do not bend to political whim. We are not driven by "animal spirits".

You got me. Keynesian economics is based on the whims of the animal spirits. The great buffalo told me to post this.

 

[maverikv]

Theft being at record low just means there's still theft.

You can stop posting because once you call taxation "theft" I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Taxation is not that price. Taxation is theft.You cannot have a decent society while there is an agency which institutionalizes theft and calls that ok.

I totally agree! Let's get rid of taxes so we don't have to pay for that pesky military or those police people that don't add any value to national stability. It's theft after all because I totally can't decide to move to some other nation if I don't like it where I live now.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You got me. Keynesian economics is based on the whims of the animal spirits.

Especially since that's what Keynes pretty much said.

Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits—a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities

(emphasis mine)

Or do you not know as much about Keynes as you'd like us to believe?

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You can stop posting because once you call taxation "theft" I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously.

That's because you lack the moral center to call theft as theft.

Tell me: what do you call it when your property is taken by force and without your consent? I call that theft. Clearly you call it something else.

And no, we do not consent just by living here. There is no social contract. There is no implicit consent as regards politics.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I totally agree! Let's get rid of taxes so we don't have to pay for that pesky military or those police people that don't add any value to national stability.

You've just begged the question that only taxation can pay for such things. Please demonstrate it. Or else your argument will clearly fall flat as the result of the use of a fallacy.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

You've just begged the question that only taxation can pay for such things. Please demonstrate it. Or else your argument will clearly fall flat as the result of the use of a fallacy.

Offer a workable alternative. I support the existing system and it's proven to function for the last couple hundred years or so. The burden of proof isn't on me.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Offer a workable alternative.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof IS upon you, for you are claiming that some things are so special that only taxation/government can handle them. YOU need to support that.

 

[maverikv]

It really is sad

 

[potency]

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof IS upon you, for you are claiming that some things are so special that only taxation/government can handle them. YOU need to support that.

You sure love that fallacy word. But anyways, how about thousands of years of civilization? From Mesopotamia, to Egypt, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, they were all dependent on one thing: taxes.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

You sure love that fallacy word.

Because it's true. Because I know how to construct a sound, valid argument. Because I know not to commit errors in reasoning.

But anyways, how about thousands of years of civilization? From Mesopotamia, to Egypt, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, they were all dependent on one thing: taxes.

Ok, now how does that show that those things listed can only be provided by taxation? Answer: it doesn't.

 

[potency]

Because it's true. Because I know how to construct a sound, valid argument. Because I know not to commit errors in reasoning.

OMG you're like, really smart and stuff! I would argue that a belief of infallability is fallacious...

Ok, now how does that show that those things listed can only be provided by taxation? Answer: it doesn't.

So I guess you overlooked the part where no sustainable and cohesive civilazation has ever existed on this planet without some form of taxation. You are presenting a theory as an argument at best.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

I guess anarchy and no taxes is the way to go.

I love how he keeps saying how bad taxes are, yet doesn't seem to give any alternative.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

OMG you're like, really smart and stuff!

Yes, I am.

So I guess you overlooked the part where no sustainable and cohesive civilazation has ever existed on this planet without some form of taxation.

So I guess you overlooked the part where that doesn't demonstrate that there are certain things which can only be provided by taxation. It's something akin to the necessary/sufficient distinction (but not quite).

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I guess anarchy and no taxes is the way to go.

It is.

I love how he keeps saying how bad taxes are, yet doesn't seem to give any alternative.

I don't need to. I'm not the one claiming that it is ok to initiate force against others; I have no burden here. It is up to those who desire to initiate force against others to demonstrate that such is ok.

That's the way it works.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Anarchy just means everyone will kill each other and form factions which will lead to one group dominating another, which would eventually lead is back to the current system. Why? Because while there are some flaws, it's better than everyone running around without a common goal.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof IS upon you, for you are claiming that some things are so special that only taxation/government can handle them. YOU need to support that.

I'm only pointing out that no society has existed in recorded history without taxation in support of fundamental functions. While I don't disagree with your statement that there are probably alternatives that may very well be workable, I do assert that none currently exist and none have existed to my knowledge. That's neither fallacy or a shrugging off of proving the point.

I think, based upon my observations of you in this and other threads, you're revisiting someone else's doctrine which you don't fully understand. Libertarians haven't put much rational thought into their arguments. They find the established norms of society disagreeable, but don't have the necessary mental capacity to fathom a viable alternative that can operate on a large scale or compensate for the basic limitations of human minds such as greed and corruption.

While it's perfectly find that you want to parrot the viewpoint, it seems silly to me that you do so and then evade rational discussion by attempting wordplay with a set of people that are clearly less emotional and more well-equipped to have a rational discussion. It might be wise to let this one go. Using this forum as a platform for the beliefs you've decided to support, but don't fully grasp seems like a poor choice. There are political venues for your ill-considered outrage that will offer you a more enjoyable back-and-forth series of "no u!" arguments.

 

[maverikv]

I hear Somalia is really nice this time of year if yiu feel like abandoning our society.

 

[BBA]

OECD= neoliberal scumbags on par with the IMF that have consistently been wrong about the "recovery" the world is supposed to be in for years and always and forever push for lower taxes as a solution despite taxes already being at historical lows.

Better chart without the shit:

Your chart that examining one metric is correct, while my lengthy pdf examining all key tax variables is overly simplistic?

I guess its hard for me to attack your imgur source as a 'scumbag' in a pathetic attempt to discredit empirical evidence.

The article wasn't looking at only capital, but the effects of taxation on the economy. I have no idea how you came away with that, assuming you even gave it a cursory glance.[/QUOTE]

Your point being?

I see a chart of marginal tax rates broken into three categories. Unless I missed something either misleading or implied, it's not a chart of income.

 

[BBA]

I hear Somalia is really nice this time of year if yiu feel like abandoning our society.

Then again, living in Sweden would be a little better choice. Hard to get citizen status there though.

 

[BBA]

Offer a workable alternative. I support the existing system and it's proven to function for the last couple hundred years or so. The burden of proof isn't on me.

The existing system is one doomed to die because of greed. One or two things will happen: 1. People will wise up and start electing a completely honest government who will correct the stupidity of the current administration. -OR- 2. People will eventually get tired of being used as serf's and revolt against the government.

Which do you see happening?

 

[BBA]

Explain in your own words what you think a Flat Tax is. Bear in mind that the Flat Tax was also espoused by its proponents to be fair.

Did I use the term flat tax? A: NOT even once. I said fair tax.

But, since you seem to be comprehension limited, here is a link for your reference:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/flat-tax-vs-fair-tax.html

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

The existing system is one doomed to die because of greed. One or two things will happen: 1. People will wise up and start electing a completely honest government who will correct the stupidity of the current administration. -OR- 2. People will eventually get tired of being used as serf's and revolt against the government.

Which do you see happening?

Governments come and governments go. The funny thing about civilization is that it invariably replaces something it doesn't like with something else it eventually doesn't like. The fundamental elements of a society include things people find repugnant, including taxation and an imperfect legal code.

That said, I think you know which option is inevitable, but you also must realize that nothing will change for the better once that option is taken.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Anarchy just means everyone will kill each other

No it doesn't.

and form factions which will lead to one group dominating another,

No it doesn't.

Hey, gainsaying is proper when unsupported assertions are offered.

which would eventually lead is back to the current system. Why? Because while there are some flaws, it's better than everyone running around without a common goal.

Why does everyone need a common goal?

 

[BBA]

Laffer curve is estimated to be between 70-80% marginal tax rate... we're nowhere near that in any country. Why was it brought up?

Also it's kind of a silly joke:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html

It's not really a curve, it probably wobbles all over, and it doesn't really say much. It is a weird idea and it should be dropped from most curricula. It is reductionism. It dumbs down a complex idea to a simple estimation that is prone to error which is why it was blatantly wrong for so long and frequently used to justify cuts.

That links is the kind of misleading BS the left lives by, you fell for that or something?

The main point they miss is not about increasing total annual revenue (Government revenue, that is). The point being to reduce spending AND reduce taxes in order to be a successful country.

Does the US government really need to be the largest single employer of the nation? You reach a point where federal spending is detrimental to economic stability of the nation. I think we have already passed that point.

My take is the tax system is broken, the US taxes corporations higher than 99% or all countries in the world and the government has expanded well beyond what the constitutional purpose was designed to be.

The government needs to be about liberty, not tyranny. This current US overtax/ overspend abuse of law environment is unhealthy for everyone except for the lawmakers themselves.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I'm only pointing out that no society has existed in recorded history without taxation in support of fundamental functions

And that's wholly irrelevant to whether or not the only way such things can be provided is via taxation.

I think, based upon my observations of you in this and other threads, you're revisiting someone else's doctrine which you don't fully understand.

No, I understand it. I think you need to address it rather than make snide comments in the vain hope that such will stand in place of an argument.

Libertarians haven't put much rational thought into their arguments.

Snide comment masquerading as an argument.

They find the established norms of society disagreeable, but don't have the necessary mental capacity to fathom a viable alternative that can operate on a large scale or compensate for the basic limitations of human minds such as greed and corruption.

So we have to have a giant, corrupt, greedy monopoly ruling over us? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Look, it's neither my fault nor my problem that you do not grasp proper argumentation methods. Don't blame me for your inability to understand such things.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I hear Somalia is really nice this time of year if yiu feel like abandoning our society.

I hear North Korea is really nice all the time if you feel like taking your stance to its logical end.

WHEEEE! I just did what you did! And did it get either of us anywhere? No. But it had to be done so that you could see that you really shouldn't do what you did. So how about we hit the reset button on that and you can try again.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

And that's wholly irrelevant to whether or not the only way such things can be provided is via taxation.

No, I understand it. I think you need to address it rather than make snide comments in the vain hope that such will stand in place of an argument.

Snide comment masquerading as an argument.

So we have to have a giant, corrupt, greedy monopoly ruling over us? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Look, it's neither my fault nor my problem that you do not grasp proper argumentation methods. Don't blame me for your inability to understand such things.

Once again, I ask you to pose a viable alternative.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Once again, I ask you to pose a viable alternative.

Once again: I do not need to. What about that fact is so difficult for you to grasp? What is it about the fact that those who claim that initiating force against others is ok (the statists) have the burden of proof escapes you? What is it about "not initiating force against others" that requires great lengths for you to grasp?

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Once again: I do not need to. What about that fact is so difficult for you to grasp? What is it about the fact that those who claim that initiating force against others is ok (the statists) have the burden of proof escapes you? What is it about "not initiating force against others" that requires great lengths for you to grasp?

Usually when someone objects to the status quo, one also has an alternative in mind they'd prefer. I'm curious if you've thought that portion of it through.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Usually when someone objects to the status quo, one also has an alternative in mind they'd prefer.

I'm curious if you've ever bothered to think through what the nature of burden of proof is here.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

I'm curious if you've ever bothered to think through what the nature of burden of proof is here.

At this point, I'm not interested in burdening you with proving something. I'm more curious why you're being so defensive and evasive over something so unimportant.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

At this point, I'm not interested in burdening you with proving something. I'm more curious why you're being so defensive and evasive over something so unimportant.

I'm not. Why do you erroneously believe that I am?

 

[maverikv]

I hear North Korea is really nice all the time if you feel like taking your stance to its logical end.

WHEEEE! I just did what you did! And did it get either of us anywhere? No. But it had to be done so that you could see that you really shouldn't do what you did. So how about we hit the reset button on that and you can try again.

North Korea? Please for the love of god go to school.