Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Follow the money...

Once again comes the brouhaha over "taxing corporations" to make them pay their "fair share"; a debate that is always revealing in that it displays some fundamental ignorance of just where those "corporate taxes" come from. Every dollar that, say, Coca-Cola or Intel pays to the government comes directly out of your pocket. As I mentioned in comments here:
The only entity that can pay taxes, ultimately, is the individual consumer. "Corporate Taxes" are a myth. If the government wants to raise a million dollars to buy diapers for needy babies, and charges the Great Big Diaper Co. a $1,000,000 tax for the purpose, then Great Big Diaper Co. is going to have to lay off $500,000 worth of employees and raise diaper prices by $500,000. (Unlike the government, GBDC can't just print money.)

Now you have more needy babies and diapers are more expensive. Good job, government!
It really is as simple as that, folks. "Corporate taxes" are, in the long run, just regressive taxes that don't hurt progressives at the ballot box because the electorate is collectively about as smart as a colony of clams.

75 comments:

CTone said...

Well put!

I thought something along the same lines, just not in a way fit for print.

On top of all that, Obama wants to punish corporations that avoid the high tax rate by moving production overseas by. . . .taxing them more! I wonder what the consequences of that will be?

Tam said...

Consequences?

See "Flag Of Convenience"

rickn8or said...

Diapers. Pretty apt example there, Tam.

Lorimor said...

Government: Full o' crap and always on your butt.

David Ross Drake said...

Hmm... are you advising that no corporations pay taxes, or only corporations with a filing cabinet in a foreign country? Are you advising that only consumers pay taxes (in which case we still lose the money, either from fewer jobs/more expensive diapers or just from spending more of our income on taxes). Or are you advising that no taxes be paid at all? Because I think the worst solution is letting companies that can afford the legal expertise to create tax havens continue to do so. This only helps the largest companies, which need much less help.

Tam said...

"Hmm... are you advising that no corporations pay taxes..."

I'm not "advising" anything; I'm stating that "corporations" don't pay taxes, the consumers of their goods and services do. The corporation only collects them from the consumer for the .gov.

Where does Microsoft get the money to pay its taxes?

og said...

once again, you cast unwarranted aspersions on the clams.

carnaby said...

The off shore tax haven goes away the instant you move the taxes directly to the consumers. We all pay the taxes in the end, as Tam has indicated, which show up as higher prices for goods.

Corporate taxes are idiotic. They are even worse than Tam says because there is a duplication of work that goes into tax compliance. Those companies could spend those tax-compliance resources on making more and better products. We are already paying taxes and the cost of compliance with our idiotic tax scheme is mind boggling.

I'm personally in favor of scrapping all income taxes, corporate or personal, and going with a national sales tax. You see the tax instantly, and don't have to worry about saving to pay your taxes at the end of the year.

David Ross Drake said...

And where does the does the consumer get his money to pay his taxes? By that reasoning, consumers don't pay taxes; they just buy fewer things and invest less, which means that the corporations have less money. With no one buying anything, corporations can't make money. No one is sitting outside the loop.

Tam said...

"And where does the does the consumer get his money to pay his taxes?"

By actually investing their time to create something that is given value by the marketplace, whether that "something" is a piece of code or a clean floor at McDonald's.

FWIW, I heartily endorse carnaby's suggestion in the post above, if we accept the existence of government and taxes as a given for the sake of argument.

perlhaqr said...

I'm in favor of Carnaby's suggestion, with a constitutional amendment set cap at a rate of 5%. Otherwise they'll just slap a 37% sales tax on everything.

Anonymous said...

"Where does Microsoft get the money to pay its taxes?"

Pfffft, from the same unicorns that will power the White Guilt Turbines, er, the Wind Powered Turbines.

Point of Order: Barry really does believe that corporations pay taxes. I know from personal experience that if you tell him how corporations pay taxes, he will deny it and insist that the wind has a wallet.

*sigh* As I've said earlier, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Shootin' Buddy

karrde said...

DRD: there is a loop, and it consists of money flowing from people who have it to pay others (people/corporations) for non-money things that they want.

Everyone who takes part of this loop is at some stage the provider of money for services/goods and at another stage the receiver of money for services/goods.

I think Tam is saying that one member (A Corporation or person) of this loop is paying the taxes by charging another member (Corporation or person) more for the goods/services. It seems that a large number of people don't see that whenever taxes siphon money off from anywhere in the loop, the cost eventually get percolated through to everyone in the loop.

Thus, the Corporation may pay the tax...by charging the Customer more, or reducing production, or both.

Earl said...

My only pure thought is one tax payer and too many tax collectors - and that is way too true. For each one of us - how many ways are we taxed by how many levels of government and their needs to make our lives better, safer and whatevered.

CastoCreations said...

I hate taxes. HATE. I don't mind paying my "fair" share but that amount seems to change constantly...generally in the up direction.

As a small (one person) business who is forced to collect and pay taxes it is the biggest pain the ass. Not only must I charge sales tax (for now only for in state purchases...I can't imagine the nightmare I'll have if they establish the internet tax for all sales) but I have to charge a different amount from each city a sale comes from (within the state). Then I have to pay all other sorts of odd taxes that don't mean anything to me ... it's not like I have a big huge corporation ... it's just me in my home.

I have to pay those taxes somehow and of course that means raising the price of my product. Which I hate doing!

I so badly wish there was a flat tax of some sort.

Dan said...

Here's a comparison:

Think of money as expanding gas, who's main purpose is to drive something (jobs, products). Think of taxes as tapping that gas to operate some sort of side mechanism (gov't). Do you think it's a better idea to put the tap right at the combustion point, thereby robbing the gas of its energy before it serves its original purpose (letting the company create jobs and product), or toward the end, when the gas has done its work driving the economy?
I, for one, believe that they need to shrink the gas tap as much as possible. I also think that some idiots left the piston out of the assembly, and all that gas is going to waste anyway.

og said...

the buck stops at the consumer- or, rather, starts there. Ultimately, the consumer pays all taxes, and there is nobody to whom the consumer can pass those costs, except his/her offspring, in reduced standard of living. Witness the reduction of median family size in the last half century, an indicator of how the middle class breeds enough to meet their ability to support the offspring. Welfare recipients, on the other hand, breed like rabbits knowing they will need to bear no responsibility for their spawn.

Anonymous said...

In an idealized market prices are set by supply and demand. An increase in production cost doesn't necessarily result in an increased price. It might well result in decreased net income. Most non-monopolies can't just pass along cost increases without some effect on demand and revenue.

Further, since corporate taxes are taxes on net income, a decrease in net income results in a decrease in tax revenue.

I am evangelistic over flat taxes for individuals, but in a corporate environment, the income tax rate is already a flat tax.

Joe said...

In Marxist belief value is only added by works, but taxes can get paid out of thin air.

Anonymous said...

Removing all income tax has great advantages:

A. A whole bunch of really smart tax lawyers and accountants and such get to find REAL jobs. Rather than engage in the intellectual masturbation that is tax law.

B. A whole bunch of lobbyists and corrupt politicians writing tax codes and loopholes have to find something productive to do. ( I hear the Mythbusters guys here: "There's your problem." )

C. Most of the IRS can go home. A sales tax is a automatic % of sales it's pretty hard to fake, it's automatic and constant. Also for us more libertarian types it's added on to EVERY purchase so everyone sees everyday what their guvmint costs them.

D. It makes it really hard to escape taxes, Mr. Rich has still gotta buy houses, groceries and megayachts.

E. It's flat, so whether you earning 10K per year or per hour you are still paying the SAME rate. No discrimination. No tax fiddles. If your're wealthy the money you aren't consuming with and being taxed on is going to the economy to invest in stuff, and that's good because it makes other people ...pay taxes.

F. The tax has to be on EVERYTHING: Boats, cars, books, College tuition, houses... (Speaking of which it removes the house interest deduction which would kill off a major distorting and pernicious influence on the housing market. You could grandfather/feather it off it so as not to screw with the existing base.)

G. If you really give a crap about the "the poor" and how this somehow hurts them more, they can apply for an easy tax refund under Y K$ per year limit revenue.

Example Calc: A. How much did you Earn. B.How much did you savings increase. (A-B) X rate = refund due

OperationNorthwoods said...

It seems to me that corporations are more real than citizens these days. They pay relatively little compared to what they paid in the 1950's, and they own DC outright, part of the Golden Rule, you know.

Our forefathers rebelled against the oppressive corporate structure of their day, so maybe we can, too.

One point that I definitely agree with you on is that corporate taxation allows people to take a Venezuelan approach to government, where the idea is that the government should provide goodies.

Mike W. said...

with a constitutional amendment set cap at a rate of 5%. Otherwise they'll just slap a 37% sales tax on everything.Who says a Constitutional Amendment setting it at 5% would keep them from raising it? Hell, "shall not be infringed" doesn't seem to stop them.

Tam said...

"OperationNorthwoods",

Quote: "They pay relatively little compared to what they paid in the 1950's..."

"They" pay NOTHING. How do I have to draw this picture to get it across to you?

Every can of Pork & Beans you buy pays ConAgra's taxes. Don't fall for the WJB populist bullshit; there is no such thing as "corporate taxes".

Anonymous said...

QUOTE
"Every can of Pork & Beans you buy pays ConAgra's taxes. Don't fall for the WJB populist bullshit; there is no such thing as "corporate taxes"

True, insofar as all taxes are paid from a redistribution of the revenue received from customers.

Does this mean your employer pays all of your income/sales/property taxes since the payments are just a redistribution of revenue you received from them. Or is it their customers who pay your taxes...or is it turtles all the way down?

JHardin said...

Anon@3PM: No, if you feel a flat sales tax disproportionately affects the poor, you refund to everyone (all legal citizens) a fixed amount per month, and everybody gets the same amount. Perhaps you'd reduce the amount based on age for persons below age 18.

Note that this would also be a way to simplify welfare as well.

If you require people to calculate some sort of amount owed or refunded, then you're heading right back into the morass of tax law loopholes and special interests lobbying for their own special exemption that we have right now, not to mention keeping the recordkeeping and auditing that everyone wants to dispose of.

Xenocles said...

Shhh! If they get what you're saying they'll just institute price caps and ban layoffs.

Kristopher said...

Anon 5:33PM :

Yes, it's turtles all the way down.

All levels of taxes have an exponential effect ... personal income tax causes the price of manufactured goods to increase because individuals must demand more pay ... Corporations are forced to pay for your income tax, so they charge more for goods, which makes individuals demand more money, etc, etc, etc, in a vicious feedback loop that destroys much more wealth than the government collects.

The .gov gets X dollars ... and because of this collection does several times X damage in total to the economy.

Which is why it takes a very small tax decrease to make an economic boom, and a very small tax increase to make a recession.

Tam said...

Anon 5:33,

"Does this mean your employer pays all of your income/sales/property taxes since the payments are just a redistribution of revenue you received from them."

To over-simplify things: You do not "receive" revenue from them. You create wealth for them, in return for an agreed-upon sum of dough.

Anonymous said...

Kristopher,

"Which is why it takes a very small tax decrease to make an economic boom, and a very small tax increase to make a recession."

You GOT it!

The Kemp is dead, long live the Kemp!

"elete" is my "word verification", so goes my life

Nathaniel said...

it's a neat model, but in reality, many corporations can't really pass taxes onto consumers. In competitive markets where price is the major variable, passing on the costs or laying off workers will result in a loss of market share to competitors, thus providing a strong inventive for healthy firms to "eat" the tax by simply allowing your profit rate to fall.

By contrast, corporations with razor-thin margins may well have to pass the costs on or lay off workers, in the absence of a healthy margin to cut into But what happens when taxes are increased is heavily dependent on the health if the corporation itself; it's much too simplistic to say "all corporate taxes are bad because they always lead to higher prices or less employment/production." This analysis does not take into account profit rates (and, more importantly, their variability), which are a crucial missing piece of the puzzle.

Anonymous said...

QUOTE
"Does this mean your employer pays all of your income/sales/property taxes since the payments are just a redistribution of revenue you received from them."

To over-simplify things: You do not "receive" revenue from them. You create wealth for them, in return for an agreed-upon sum of dough.

This sounds so Marxist, I'm surprised. The Enterprise creates wealth. Unless you created the Enterprise with your capital, then you are merely a "contractor" who provides the service that is stipulated in your contract for the stipulated amount of dough. How much do you lose when the Enterprise fails? How much do they lose?

Anonymous said...

Quote
"You create wealth for them, in return for an agreed-upon sum of dough."

not to be a prick...but that means
if you don't create wealth..then you don't get the agreed upon sum of dough..right?

the pawnbroker said...

this thread is proof-positive of a complete lack of understanding of the capitalist system among apparently otherwise intelligent people.

is it any wonder that the most obvious proponent of socialism in the modern history of the free world is seen as messiah by so many?

*shakes head in disbelief and concern for the future of our children, our grandchildren, and our world*

jtc

Tam said...

Anon 6:43,

"Unless you created the Enterprise with your capital, then you are merely a "contractor" who provides the service that is stipulated in your contract for the stipulated amount of dough."

Yes. And...?

Mark said...

I'd pay 'em all just to come home.

I spent some time stateside these last few months. My heart actually stops hurting when I'm on US soil. I really don't care about the "tax burden". It's so much less than I'm already paying.

But what's most is my heart doesn't hurt when I'm on US soil. That ol' homing beacon stops screaming, and my chest feels OK.

I know you can't really dig this, 'cause you've not done the long-term overseas thing - but I just want my chest to stop hurting. And the tax burden's a lot less than I get here.

So from where I'm sat, it's not so bad. Everything else, I can work out down the way. I just wanna come home.

Ancient Woodsman said...

Being from seacoast New England, I take great exception to the massive insult taht you just pawned off on the whole of clam-hood.

What did clams ever do to you?

Anonymous said...

Your analysis is correct. Yes we in the big corporations just pass the taxes along as a cost of doing business. No different then any other expense.

The issue (to me) is taxing us twice on profits we make in other parts of the world. If we have to pay taxes on the income we made in say France, and then pay taxes on that income again to the US wealth redistribution group (IRS) then we are no longer even remotely competitive.

We as a big corporation are then faced with two choices. Either give up being an international company and paying twice the taxes or just move out of the US and only pay taxes on our US income.

Do I hear Barbados as our headquarters coming? Is that what the government really wants, an exit of big corporations outside the US?

Mark said...

Oh gh0d I've just read the mouthbreather comments here.

Gnah.

You create wealth by creating things which people will buy. Be it a better widget, a better car, a better fusor, a better visual effect. You make that which did not exist before, which people want, and you make money. Duh. It's not rocket science.

Verification: InGun. Yes, please arm me on re-entry.

og said...

"it's a neat model,"

No, it's not a model, it's a law. And it's not a law like the seat belt one that I flaunt daily, it's a law like gravity, only it's a much harsher mistress.

If the Widgets United Service Store makes widgets and sells them for $100, and the cost to manufacture those widgets is $60, and the tax is $20, the profit is $20. If the tax goes up to $40, the company has a few choices: Make it cheaper, so there is still profit after the confiscatory tax, raise the prices, or if competition then makes it impossible to raise prices, go out of business. BUT THE CUSTOMER STILL PAYS THE FUCKING TAXES. Jesus, how hard is this to understand? No magical unicorns pop out of thin air and hand the taxes to anyone, they are paid by the customer. Period. End of question. For fucking ever.

Now, if W.U.S.S. goes out of business because the taxes became so high they couldn't compete, and only one other widget company remains, the remaining widget company will price the widgets at whatever they want. Guess what? Consumer pays increased price because of added taxes. So it is written. So it will always be done. QED

Mark said...

og's summation is elegant and adequate.

This frakkin' work rec is harder.

caverita?

What is that, a chick in an Apache?

Anonymous said...

QUOTE
If the Widgets United Service Store makes widgets and sells them for $100, and the cost to manufacture those widgets is $60, and the tax is $20, the profit is $20. If the tax goes up to $40, the company has a few choices:

No..if the cost is $60 then the net profit is $40. If the tax is $20, then the net after tax is $20. If the tax is $40, then the net after tax is $0 and the invested capital will eventually find a more efficient home...like treasury bills or ammo manufacturing or a K street lobbying firm and the contractors providing services for Widgets United Service Store will have to find a new vocation.

og said...

OK: Anonymous, tell me: Who paid the taxes? Hint: TAXES ARE COSTS.

Anonymous said...

Quote
OK: Anonymous, tell me: Who paid the taxes? Hint: TAXES ARE COSTS.

Some taxes are costs, like property taxes and sales taxes on raw goods. Income taxes are a redistribution of profits. ie profits sent to the government instead of the shareholders. This is fundamentally different than taxes that are true costs. Have none of you ever run a business? the SHAREHOLDERS paid the taxes!!!!

Anonymous said...

don't mean to hide behind the Anonymous veil. I just can't post any other way

Tom in VA
libertarian

og said...

shareholders = customers/consumers.

Yes, I have run a business, which is why I know that.

OperationNorthwoods said...

Tam,

I know that "they pay nothing", just as "they receive nothing" when the Feds give them trillions. Corporations are a legally-created structure for individuals. My complaint with the corporate state is not meant as approval for a government based on free goodies for the masses.

og said...

"og's summation is elegant and adequate"

Actually, Tam's original post is flawless, as usual. I'm just here swatting flies.

Larry said...

Tom, ALL taxes are costs of doing business. This has been very well explained here.
Are you just being willfully obtuse?

EgregiousCharles said...

There's a bit of oversimplification here. Corporate taxes are a cost, yes, the burden of which is divided up amongst
A)the consumers via purchase price,
B)employees (including management) via salary and benefits,
and C) shareholders via profits.
The way this is divided is decided by corporate management, which tends to make it an extremely regressive tax.

It is extremely important to remember that the corporation itself is a legal fiction, an imaginary entity, which does not actually enjoy, hoard, or squander its profits. It's not like a corporation goes off to Las Vegas without any of its employees or officers and blows the profits on roulette and hookers.

Nor does a corporation make the decisions it may be sued for later. Some management types made that decision, and if they are long gone suing the corporation makes as much sense as flogging some modern baseball team because the team refused to accept blacks in 1920.

og said...

"There's a bit of oversimplification here."

Well, let me simplify it much further. Your "a, b, and c" are customers. The "consumer" (a misnomer, because all three are consumers) uses cash to purchase an item. The employees use their labor to purchase cash. And the shareholders use their cash to purchase wealth- or at least the promise of wealth. The customer is not the man standing inline at Best Buy to purchase the widget, but each and every person involved. And the customer always pays the taxes. In your example, three times; the end user pays tax on his purchase price, the shareholder on his investment, and the employee on his wages. As I've said before: the buck stops at the level of the individual. Every tax is paid by US.

the pawnbroker said...

anon at 8:45 p.m.:

"the SHAREHOLDERS paid the taxes!!!!"

which was the entire point of the post...that there is no mysterious, nefarious corporate entity on which to impose taxes painlessly to "the people" (shareholders, employees, consumers).

in short, "i have met the corp. and it is us." that pogo was a smart dude...er, creature. tam, too. :o)

jtc

Anonymous said...

Amazing, money spent is money spent. The $1 million that is taxed in Tam's example will be spent on diapers, increasing sales for the hypothetical company. The correct argument is that money spent by the government is less efficient overall than money spent by individuals. However the argument that $1 million in additional costs will result in $1 million in losses to jobs and increasing prices ignores the fact that its a tax on PROFITS. So yeah, I guess the company could fire $500,000 worth of employees and raise their prices by $500,000 and to attempt to protect that last 35% of their profits. I kinda view the double taxation of corps as a balance for the powerful advantages that they enjoy as a business entity. Interesting to note that you object to the falacy of saying that corporations pay taxes, but then isnt a corporate bailout just a refund of taxes to the consumer?

Tam said...

"So yeah, I guess the company could fire $500,000 worth of employees and raise their prices by $500,000 and to attempt to protect that last 35% of their profits."

I was unaware that the corporation might have another reason for existing than generating those eeeevil "profits".

I understand that in your lexicon "profit" only has four letters, but still...

Anonymous said...

You didnt address the last part of that post. Also you failed to recognize that the company is going to do whatever it can to increase profits ANYWAY. If they can do that by increasing prices and firing people, they will even if they pay NO taxes. Call a spade a spade and admit that you are fundamentally opposed to any taxation and would prefer a world where there was no governmental safety net of any kind. Then we could have more cool Ann Rand quotes.

Tam said...

"Also you failed to recognize that the company is going to do whatever it can to increase profits ANYWAY."

Uh, yeah, that's what it's there for.

"If they can do that by increasing prices and firing people, they will even if they pay NO taxes."

Okay. I agree with this, too. So why build in an artificial Cost Of Doing Business that only ultimately hurts the end consumer and call it a net good?

"Call a spade a spade and admit that you are fundamentally opposed to any taxation and would prefer a world where there was no governmental safety net of any kind."

Sure, in a perfect world. In this one, I'll settle for "minimal", "transparent", and "honest".

"Then we could have more cool Ann Rand quotes."

Did Ayn have a sister? Was she any good?

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the mis-spell on Ayn. As to the artificial cost of doing business, well thats partially true. As i originally indicated, government is inefficient in general. But, many of the things that a minimal, transparent, and honest government does results in an environment that allows companies to flourish. So when Microsoft, or Bill Gates uses the infrastructure, legal system, and stability of the U.S. to make a billions, it is benefitting from a portion of what government does. So why not pay for that?

og said...

"So why not pay for that?"

well, mostly because the COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO DESPISED TAXATION and the people who collect the tax dollars AND the people who use them are by definition unworthy of the fruits of the labor of working people.

Tam said...

"So when Microsoft, or Bill Gates uses the infrastructure, legal system, and stability of the U.S. to make a billions, it is benefitting from a portion of what government does. So why not pay for that?"

Because "Microsoft" isn't paying for it! Microsoft's customers are, indirectly. Calling it a tax on Microsoft is just a comfortable fiction.

Anonymous said...

The country was founded by people who were against taxation without representation. You sir drive on roads built by PUBLIC tax dollars, rely on police paid for by taxes, and can eat food with some level of assurance of safety thanks to the FDA. You use those public tax dollars. Places that have no taxes might exist in perfect worlds, but so does socialism. Both break down when attempted in reality. No taxes and thus, no real government doesnt work with modern civilization. Tam at least recognizes reality. The world you are asking for would be great, until you took some medicine and died because a company decided that it was ok to have 2%fatalities on their product, they still made a good profit.

And Tam, do you really think that if the corporate income tax was eliminated that the price for software would drop? No, thats just extra profit. Would they hire more employees? No, thats a waste of profits. So where would that money go? Shareholders? Unless there was a dividend paid, it sits in the corporate coffers, or is reinvested. Now, governmental spending vs corporate investment, thats a real discussion that you stand a good chance of winning. But thats not what most here are getting at, is it?

Anonymous said...

Oh, also again, when you state that the cost is socialized (its really the consumers who pay) you also imply that profits are socialized (consumers benefit). Therefore, again, how is bailing out GM or Chrysler, or anybody anything but an effective tax rebate for us consumers?

Tam said...

"Oh, also again, when you state that the cost is socialized (its really the consumers who pay) you also imply that profits are socialized (consumers benefit)."

So why impose artificial costs? Why not just eliminate the middleman and only tax consumers directly instead of making corporations your hidden tax collectors under the fiction of "corporate taxes"? Unless you are trying to manipulate the votes of the dim, of course...

og said...

" You sir drive on roads built by PUBLIC tax dollars, rely on police paid for by taxes, "

and unquestionably, demonstrably, every time the government uses those tax dollars to hire police or pave roads the lions share of those tax dollars are wasted in corruption and graft and stupidity. You, sir, are a phule.

Anonymous said...

Thats a fair question, and the answer is that you can park your income in a corporation and thus avoid paying any income taxes. Now here should be where you again point to income taxes and cry foul. And if you are willing to accept the regressive nature of sales taxes then that is indeed a really good argument. The problem is that we use income taxes to do many things; fund government, encourage certain behavior, and in a broad sense provide public services. This complicates the whole thing. If it was just a revenue stream then hell, a flat tax is great. But you pay a lower rate on capital gains and dividends to encourage investment in business. Hence we spend time and money keeping that income/loss seperate from ordinary income/loss.

And sir, your answer is to have no police or roads? Thats fwise.

theirritablearchitect said...

"No, it's not a model, it's a law. And it's not a law like the seat belt one that I flaunt daily, it's a law like gravity, only it's a much harsher mistress."og, that's just perfect...as if you were trying to explain what every five-year-old knows to a congressman attempting to prevent people falling from high places.

I'm sitting here laughing at that one.

Gregg said...

Anon @ 1:22

"The country was founded by people who were against taxation without representation. You sir drive on roads built by PUBLIC tax dollars, rely on police paid for by taxes, and can eat food with some level of assurance of safety thanks to the FDA. You use those public tax dollars. Places that have no taxes might exist in perfect worlds, but so does socialism. Both break down when attempted in reality. No taxes and thus, no real government doesnt work with modern civilization. Tam at least recognizes reality. The world you are asking for would be great, until you took some medicine and died because a company decided that it was ok to have 2%fatalities on their product, they still made a good profit"


A) Often I drive on private roads that I pay for NOT "public" roads. Yes, I pay for a bunch of the roads I drive on, right here in the USofA, but I still pay the taxes taht are used to pay for the public roads that others drive on.
B) I do NOT and have not relied on the police in many years. Primarily because the few times that I attempted to rely upon them, as I was taught, were unpleasant experiences where it was proven that they can not be relied upon even in extremis. Yes, there are some exceptions to that rule, but that is what they are, exceptions.

C) Do you have any bloody idea how unsafe your food and especially drugs are? Do you have any concept of how common it is for the various case studies to falsify evidence? How about the number of people misdiagnosed so that they can get warm bodies to make up the populations for the case studies? We would be MUCH safer if there was an independent company that certified the safety of food or drug. A company that could be sued for damages if they were wrong. As it is, the "safe" food ends up to harbor elevated levels of E-Coli and nothing happens other than some useless sound and fury. Nothing is changed to make the food safer.

Yes, I am against any and all taxation, yes I am against government. However, I realize that most people are not me, and that the best that can be expected in the real world is a minimal government.

OTOH, you are either intellectually lazy, mentally challenged, or deliberately obtuse.

Anonymous said...

Who is being deliberately obtuse? According you your post Gregg you don't use public roads (yeah right), would be ok with the police and justice system evaporating (so all those criminals locked up would be no problems to you or yours if released), and trust a company to police other companies because it could be sued (where, btw? You contend that the police, and by extension, legal system are unnecessary). For adequate protection TO BE POSSIBLE you have to have oversight of food and drugs from someone NOT PAID by the company being watched. So you must have the consumer paying for the service. You are being deceptive when you paint yourself as disconnected from society, and impractical. Cities of millions and millions are not feasible or safe without some government. Thats the bottom line.

theirritablearchitect said...

"Cities of millions and millions are not feasible or safe without some government. Thats the bottom line."

No reasoning with dolts like this.

They all perceive anarchy as something with lots of killing, pillaging and rape, instead of how it would really work, with the rest of us doing what it is we do, without worrying about this mythical glue that these other weirdos are just sure is holding the whole together.

Wake the fuck up, you idiots.

Anonymous said...

Very nice, please point out one, just one instance where your THEORY has even been tested. What the rest of us do is drive on public roads, obey laws enforced by the police, and occasionally eat out at restaraunts that have been inspected at some point by the local government. I'm a goddamn libertarian, but people who refuse to admit that some government is necessary with over 6 billion people living here give libertarians a bad name. Give me an example, just one, that involved more than a handful of citizens.

theirritablearchitect said...

Shut the fuck up, fool.

Your head needs to be examined, and you are no libertarian.

If you were, you wouldn't be spouting such non-sense.

the pawnbroker said...

anon, you must mean Libertarian, the party which certainly does have a bad name, thanks to those who run "it"...

libertarians, otoh, by definition do not have a "name", or an "it".

jtc

Anonymous said...

I am impressed at how many here are EAGER to jump all over single sentences, call them stupid, and ignore large points in postings. I guess you couldnt respond in any other way. Guys, this is just like HS math. Slap down the right answer, no support behind it, and what do you get? ZERO credit, an F. So if thats the best you have, you sentence the rest of us to years with snake-oil salesman leading the country. Our hostess here fights a good fight, step up yours.

theirritablearchitect said...

"...ignore large points in postings..."

Maybe because your "large points" are indeed pointless.

I'm not about to engage in some sort of "argument" when you insist upon setting the standards for play so conveniently close for your own scoring.

It simply is a lost cause on you, since objectivity simply can't be discussed in any rational manner.

Larry said...

"do you really think that if the corporate income tax was eliminated that the price for software would drop? No, thats just extra profit. Would they hire more employees? No, thats a waste of profits. So where would that money go?"

Answer: If the corporate income tax were eliminated, stupid Company A would just pocket the extra. Smart Companies B and C would drop their prices by the amount that they used to pay in corporate taxes and eat Company A for lunch. Then, when Company A filed for bankruptcy, Company B and C would squabble over the carcass.

It's called the free market, and it works great when it's allowed to.

theirritablearchitect said...

"...I kinda view the double taxation of corps as a balance for the powerful advantages that they enjoy as a business entity."

Spoken like a true, downtrodden peasant...who also knows nothing about the risks of running a business.

Anonymous said...

First, to Larry, pretty good point. Not all business models are geared towards domination of their market, but its a valid point. Second, to Irritable, how about elaborating on those standards that are skewed? Is it stating that we are looking at the world as it has existed in the last 1000 years? And those risks in running a business? Well someone running their own business without ANY formal business structure will be totally liable for anything going wrong. Sell something that is defective and not only the $10,000 that you invested in your business, but your $100,000 home could be lost in a lawsuit. Make your business a corporation and all you can lose is what you put in, the $10,000. OF course most companies that I deal with are partnerships or LLCs, so I am not overly fond of corporations anyway.