• Google boss "very proud of our tax avoidance scheme"
    234 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;38822594]The voice of reason in this thread.[/QUOTE] Garry is the epitome of charisma.
[quote]The denial of capital to the lower classes by the upper classes is the reason for this lack of social mobility. Because the rich classes are paying less and investing less, and hoarding more, then there is a freeze on the movement of capital. To be socially mobile requires some sort of starting capital- Garry did not pull Gmod out of his ass, he started with existing software and hardware to develop from. Yet this initial capital does not exist in the lower classes- the vast majority of Americans simply have no access to the necessities to move upwards. If you have no ability to advance in society, if you have no starting capital, and if your only option is either reliance on government welfare or obtain mountains of debt while using all of your time to work in amazing shitty jobs, then where can you go? [/quote] To elaborate more on this: When Garry made Gmod, he had initial capital. He had the Source engine and the code for it. This was his initial capital. This was not of his own invention, and is the equivalent of being an open market, as this is just sitting there waiting to be exploited. He took the initiative to educate himself in how to work the code and the initiative to make Gmod. He did the work to make Gmod and then to get it where it needed to be to make a profit off it. We can safely attribute this to him, but this is not a viable example of the position of the majority. Imagine instead that Source was not something open to the public. We could all play a Source game, but no one had access to any tools that could be used to modify it or its base code. It was instead held by Valve employees only. How is Garry supposed to gain access to the capital of Source? how can he reasonably make Gmod, or even begin to put the effort in, if he has no access to Source? Well, he could build his own engine, right? But this is only viable if he has the resources to expend on this. But because Garry uses all of his labor, time, and capital on providing for his family, paying his rent, and still can't afford all of what he needs, how is he reasonably expected to break into the market? The exception is if he creates something unique to the market, but this is a chance that few of us will ever have. And whenever a chance to work with Source- or any engine- opens up, Garry is denied the opportunity because the conditions of the time allow more favorably skilled persons also seeking to work with Source to gain these positions first. Garry, and 4 million others of his class and skill, is also competing with 1 million others who have previously worked with code and engines professionally. when there are only 50 opening every year, then what chance does he have? Without Source, Garry can not develop Gmod. This is not a matter of the work he puts in, this is the simple availability of Source being denied to the lower classes because of the actions or wishes of the upper classes. Hence, Valve denies capital to Garry. Garry has no opportunity to ever develop Gmod. [editline]13th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mike42012;38823538]They are not morally obligated to do shit, corporations are just 'guilds'. They do what gets them the most money. Social obligation doesn't mean anything.[/QUOTE] If you have 2000 apples, and your friend has 1 apple, and you are full while he is starving, are you morally obligated to give him apples to allow him to survive? Yes. Is it morally wrong to lobby for law to allow you to skip out on giving society's democratically decided rationing of apples? Yes. Are you denying him apples? Yes. This is immoral. and plus, how many people will be there to buy your product if they don't have enough to survive, or no disposable income? It's in the interest of capitalists to redistribute capital to a level in which everyone can buy their commodities. This is why a strong social democracy provides people with more expensive consumer goods than a strict capitalist society, where commodities are only held by the elite or higher classes. When some 60% of society can't buy your shit, then you deny yourself of 60% of the potential market.
I don't think you need to elaborate, to be honest. The original explanation was long enough. :v: [editline]13th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823563']If you have 2000 apples, and your friend has 1 apple, and you are full while he is starving, are you morally obligated to give him apples to allow him to survive? Yes. Is it morally wrong to lobby for law to allow you to skip out on giving society's democratically decided rationing of apples? Yes. Are you denying him apples? Yes. This is immoral.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between that and real life is that someone is more likely to care about their friend than someone they don't know. Sad as it is, that's the unfortunate truth. They are less obligated to help a stranger than their friend, and to them, the poor are strangers.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38823613] There's a difference between that and real life is that someone is more likely to care about their friend than someone they don't know. Sad as it is, that's the unfortunate truth. They are less obligated to help a stranger than their friend, and to them, the poor are strangers.[/QUOTE] Less obligated, or less willing? Whether it's his friend or not, the person will starve if he does not give part of this apple hoard back. When it's not just one person, but rather billions, then that obligation is ever more real.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823682']Less obligated, or less willing? Whether it's his friend or not, the person will starve if he does not give part of this apple hoard back. When it's not just one person, but rather billions, then that obligation is ever more real.[/QUOTE] Less willing, I suppose is the more accurate term. Either way, they are probably not going to do anything about it.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38817594]Google doesn't really have any customer support tbh[/QUOTE] That's because you aren't their actual customer but product. :P [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38823385]I just thought up this tax plan in 20 seconds while I was on the toilet citizens only pay for what they use (ie. gas tax pays for roads, tuition pays for schools, etc.) [B]businesses have more money to pay their employees[/B] as with any tax plan that was thought up on the toilet, I'm sure there are plenty of wrinkles that need to be ironed out, but honestly what we've got now is somewhere close to "sacrifice goat to great queen rosie rios" so this can't be any worse[/QUOTE] Problems a) this will pretty seriously go against the poor in a number of important services like education. As generally those that are reliant on public schooling in the US are low and middle class people, and this will impact many other services as well b) The actual result would be - business do not pay any more to employees and bag the profits. The point of taxes isn't for a person to essentially be forced to pay for thier use - the point of taxes is for services to be accessible to all and to ensure that everyone has a certain minmum level of life quality irregardless of their actual income.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38823385]I just thought up this tax plan in 20 seconds while I was on the toilet completely drop income tax give businesses a flat tax rate of somewhere around 10-15% make federal minimum wage $10 citizens only pay for what they use (ie. gas tax pays for roads, tuition pays for schools, etc.) businesses have more money to pay their employees citizens have more money to put into the economy everybody wins as with any tax plan that was thought up on the toilet, I'm sure there are plenty of wrinkles that need to be ironed out, but honestly what we've got now is somewhere close to "sacrifice goat to great queen rosie rios" so this can't be any worse[/QUOTE] Well your first poo wrinkle is that 15% of all taxable business income in a year is, assuming the economy does fan-fucking-tastic, somewhere around $2.3 trillion. Assuming poor people suddenly stop existing and the government fires everyone it employs, you still owe $600 billion in pensions.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater]If you have 2000 apples, and your friend has 1 apple, and you are full while he is starving, are you morally obligated to give him apples to allow him to survive? Yes. Is it morally wrong to lobby for law to allow you to skip out on giving society's democratically decided rationing of apples? Yes. Are you denying him apples? Yes. This is immoral.[/QUOTE] Corporations are not people. Morals do not apply when their sole goal (this being a public company) is to make profit. By paying less taxes, they get more profit.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38823931]Well your first poo wrinkle is that 15% of all corporate income in a year is, assuming the economy does fan-fucking-tastic, somewhere around $2.3 trillion. Assuming poor people suddenly stop existing and the government fires everyone it employs, you still owe $600 billion in pensions.[/QUOTE] well the government probably should fire most of it's employees, but that's neither here nor there. make it 20% then, that will cover another 700 billion or so. then there's still deciding where to put sales tax
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38823964]Corporations are not people. Morals do not apply when their sole goal (this being a public company) is to make profit. By paying less taxes, they get more profit.[/QUOTE] Well, if you want to believe the Supreme Court, then corporations [I]are people[/I]- or at least extension of persons. A collective or group is no less responsible than an individual. And when corporations are headed by an individual, then that individual is responsible for the company's actions. No matter what way you go about it, morals do apply. You're making the case that corporations ought to be immoral in order to reach their goal: profit. If anything, this just strengthens my ideological case that private business does not provide for society and is not a worthy unit to base a society off of.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38824054']Well, if you want to believe the Supreme Court, then corporations [I]are people[/I]- or at least extension of persons. A collective or group is no less responsible than an individual. And when corporations are headed by an individual, then that individual is responsible for the company's actions. No matter what way you go about it, morals do apply. You're making the case that corporations ought to be immoral in order to reach their goal: profit. If anything, this just strengthens my ideological case that private business does not provide for society and is not a worthy unit to [b]base a society off of[/b].[/QUOTE] What does this mean?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38824054']Well, if you want to believe the Supreme Court, then corporations [I]are people[/I]- or at least extension of persons. A collective or group is no less responsible than an individual. And when corporations are headed by an individual, then that individual is responsible for the company's actions.[/QUOTE] This is not the same issue. [I]Legally[/I], they posses the same rights in court as any person, however, they are not people themselves, and so do not abide by our moral standards. They exist solely for profit, these public companies, and nothing we can do will obligate them to pay more taxes than nessecary.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/bAI0p.jpg[/IMG] thought it was relevant to the thread
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38823385]I just thought up this tax plan in 20 seconds while I was on the toilet completely drop income tax give businesses a flat tax rate of somewhere around 10-15% make federal minimum wage $10 citizens only pay for what they use (ie. gas tax pays for roads, tuition pays for schools, etc.) businesses have more money to pay their employees citizens have more money to put into the economy everybody wins as with any tax plan that was thought up on the toilet, I'm sure there are plenty of wrinkles that need to be ironed out, but honestly what we've got now is somewhere close to "sacrifice goat to great queen rosie rios" so this can't be any worse[/QUOTE] nah actually thats a lot worse
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823563'] If you have 2000 apples, and your friend has 1 apple, and you are full while he is starving, are you morally obligated to give him apples to allow him to survive? Yes. Is it morally wrong to lobby for law to allow you to skip out on giving society's democratically decided rationing of apples? Yes. Are you denying him apples? Yes. This is immoral.[/QUOTE] Do you/your parents take advantage of opportunities to lower their tax liability? What's the income cutoff where you say "Nope, you make too much, so if you do what I do you're causing us all to starve"?
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38824290][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/bAI0p.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] oh man penn jillette said some vague shit about not being prideful just for voting for someone? shut down taxes, game over [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] its so funny when people find a quote from someone and go "haha! facepunch generally approves of this person.. surely posting a contextless image quote from them will change their minds!" [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38824051]well the government probably should fire most of it's employees, but that's neither here nor there. make it 20% then, that will cover another 700 billion or so. then there's still deciding where to put sales tax[/QUOTE] ooh OOH i have an idea instead of making poor people who are already struggling to make it by pay 20% of their income in tax, lets make it so that like, after you earn a million dollars, every dollar you make after that is taxed by something like 35-45%? that way rich people can stay rich and poor people can, you know, like eat and stuff
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38824308]oh man penn jillette said some vague shit about not being prideful just for voting for someone? shut down taxes, game over [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] its so funny when people find a quote from someone and go "haha! facepunch generally approves of this person.. surely posting a contextless image quote from them will change their minds!" [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] ooh OOH i have an idea instead of making poor people who are already struggling to make it by pay 20% of their income in tax, lets make it so that like, after you earn a million dollars, every dollar you make after that is taxed by something like 35-45%? that way rich people can stay rich and poor people can, you know, like eat and stuff[/QUOTE] that 20% would be on businesses, the poor wouldn't be paying a dime. congrats on not reading anything
oops i misread your idea still sucks tho
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823563']If you have 2000 apples, and your friend has 1 apple, and you are full while he is starving, are you morally obligated to give him apples to allow him to survive? Yes. Is it morally wrong to lobby for law to allow you to skip out on giving society's democratically decided rationing of apples? Yes. Are you denying him apples? Yes. This is immoral.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah? Moral nihilism. Bam, it's not immoral. [i]Your[/i] personal morals do not dictate how [i]I[/i] live my life.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824524]Oh yeah? Moral nihilism. Bam, it's not immoral. [i]Your[/i] personal morals do not dictate how [i]I[/i] live my life.[/QUOTE] ie "im ok with being a shitty person"
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38824531]ie "im ok with being a shitty person"[/QUOTE] Technically, it's more like "a shitty person" doesn't exist as a concept, much less a thing you can be. Anyway, moral nihilism is just an example.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824549]Technically, it's more like "a shitty person" doesn't exist as a concept, much less a thing you can be. Anyway, moral nihilism is just an example.[/QUOTE] moral nihilists are shitty people
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38824566]moral nihilists are shitty people[/QUOTE] That's just your opinion. Morals are relative, as a moral nihilist would say. Besides that, moral nihilism speaks only about "absolute" morals, meaning that there's nothing in the universe that determines whether or not something is "good" to do (a go, karma system, or whatever). A moral nihilist can still say "there aren't any absolute morals, but I'm still going to be a 'good' person". Just as an atheist can say "there's no ultimate reward for being a good person, but I'll do it anyway". Also, I'm not a moral nihilist so I can't really speak much for them anyway.
[QUOTE=Bentham;38824305]Do you/your parents take advantage of opportunities to lower their tax liability? What's the income cutoff where you say "Nope, you make too much, so if you do what I do you're causing us all to starve"?[/QUOTE] I pay my fair share of taxes, and don't seek to lower my tax burden. My mother will seek to, because obviously easing the burden of one family just above poverty line is not the same as easing the burden of a public institution.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824592]That's just your opinion. Morals are relative, as a moral nihilist would say. Besides that, moral nihilism speaks only about "absolute" morals, meaning that there's nothing in the universe that determines whether or not something is "good" to do (a go, karma system, or whatever). A moral nihilist can still say "there aren't any absolute morals, but I'm still going to be a 'good' person". Just as an atheist can say "there's no ultimate reward for being a good person, but I'll do it anyway". Also, I'm not a moral nihilist so I can't really speak much for them anyway.[/QUOTE] Actually its more of a pragmatic view. You pay more taxes and goes to things like education, infrastructure, military and even a surplus(What a concept!) to be used. In the long run, all of those things benefit an economy and lead to better economic stability.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824592]That's just your opinion. Morals are relative, as a moral nihilist would say. Besides that, moral nihilism speaks only about "absolute" morals, meaning that there's nothing in the universe that determines whether or not something is "good" to do (a go, karma system, or whatever). A moral nihilist can still say "there aren't any absolute morals, but I'm still going to be a 'good' person". Just as an atheist can say "there's no ultimate reward for being a good person, but I'll do it anyway". Also, I'm not a moral nihilist so I can't really speak much for them anyway.[/QUOTE] moral nihilists (like other forms of nihilist) sound like idiots arguing about nonsense that is either meaningless or already accepted by everyone else. morals are objective, we all know that. when someone speaks about morals in an objective way they're referring to the general moral guidelines that western culture (and really most developed cultures around the globe) hold. pointing out that they are subjective doesn't really matter because to the majority of decent people ([U][I][B]in my opinion!![/B][/I][/U]) will still think you're awful for letting someone starve next to your warehouse of apples
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38824607]moral nihilists (like other forms of nihilist) sound like idiots arguing about nonsense that is either meaningless or already accepted by everyone else. morals are objective, we all know that. when someone speaks about morals in an objective way they're referring to the general moral guidelines that western culture (and really most developed cultures around the globe) hold. pointing out that they are subjective doesn't really matter because to the majority of decent people ([U][I][B]in my opinion!![/B][/I][/U]) will still think you're awful for letting someone starve next to your warehouse of apples[/QUOTE] No one is 'starving' because of companies not paying their taxes. The moral arguments gets shat out of the window when you realize that the reason people are starving is because they cannot get jobs in the first place. It's not as simple as 'I have 1x10^23723482742 apples, my friend has none, I WON'T LET HIM STARVE BECAUSE I'M MORALLY CORRECT'. There's a bigger picture here. And before you come back and say, 'people can't get jobs because of the government not having enough money (from corps. not paying taxes) to subsidize more companies and employ them', kindly fellate a phallus, the reason our government has fuck-all money is because all of it goes to the military.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38824639]No one is 'starving' because of companies not paying their taxes. The moral arguments gets shat out of the window when you realize that the reason people are starving is because they cannot get jobs in the first place. It's not as simple as 'I have 1x10^23723482742 apples, my friend has none, I WON'T LET HIM STARVE BECAUSE I'M MORALLY CORRECT'. There's a bigger picture here. And before you come back and say, 'people can't get jobs because of the government not having enough money to subsidize more companies and employ them', kindly fellate a phallus, the reason our government has fuck-all money is because all of it goes to the military.[/QUOTE] ya i'm aware tax evasion doesn't mean you're directly causing starvation lol, i was just using the apple thing to point out that moral nihilism is for angsty teens and sociopathic "adults"
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38824054']If anything, this just strengthens my ideological case that private business does not provide for society and is not a worthy unit to base a society off of.[/QUOTE] Then what the hell do you base society off of? Governments, societies, countries, nations? Oh hey, I have an idea! Everybody pays the government a portion of their income, and the government gives them "services" in return (protection, education, etc.). There are no for-profit companies allowed, either. Instead, the government pays people to do things "for the public good"! Now there's no companies to abuse the public for profit, and everybody ends up with a great life! We tried that in the dark ages with [b]feudalism[/b]. (Spoiler: It didn't really work out) You know what got the middle class started? The middle class that ultimately caused the end the shitstain on human history that is the dark ages? Merchants, bitches! (Also the Middle East got its shit together before Europe did and kicked their asses, which was a nice motivation for them)
[QUOTE=Mike42012;38824230]This is not the same issue. [I]Legally[/I], they posses the same rights in court as any person, however, they are not people themselves, and so do not abide by our moral standards. They exist solely for profit, these public companies, and nothing we can do will obligate them to pay more taxes than nessecary.[/QUOTE] Well, law will obligate them, and they are morally obligated. And functionally. Again- what good is a society of the poor to a person of business? But as I've said- a collective or group is no less responsible than an individual. They must abide by the same moral standards as any individual. If groups, collectives, or entities made of persons are simply exempt from the moral conditions of the time, then we might as well get rid of partisan politics all together and agree that [I]those[/I] entities have no reason or obligation to be morally ethical. By all means you are right in that corporations do not have a literal, physical obligation. But do we want to live in a society in which any collective or group is allowed to simply do as they wish with the lives of so many, simply because it is its purpose? That an institution afflicted with a public purpose can simply act in a way that is immature or dangerous for its own benefit? At what point are we going to say that just because you can means we ought to let you? Corporations- at least the larger scale ones- control more lives than their own and affect far beyond their borders. It then becomes a public necessity for regulation and limitation to be imposed on these entities if they do not do so themselves. but because business has a political party of its own and greatly affects the other, these sorts of political changes are difficult and challenged in the legislature. We must hold corporations that control lives, economies, and the rest at the same standard we would hold a state. Why do we cry out against Korea denying food to its masses, but cheer when a corporation is capable of hoarding wealth and denying it to the masses?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.