A different view on taxes

[Jmayer20]

A lot of people tend to view taxes as the government stealing money from you but here is a different view on it. Taxes are us paying a bill for government services. Here is a comparison. Lets say you go to a restaurant and have a good meal there. Are you at all surprised when they hand you a bill for the meal and the service that you received? Would the owners that expect you to pay that bill be stealing your money? Of course not. Its the same with the government. They provide us with various services. Services like public education, a large military that protects us from both foreign and domestic threats, law enforcement that protects us from criminals, a fire department to put out fires, etc.

So why then are people surprised when the government expects us to pay for these services? Now many of you are probably thinking that the government forces you to pay and if you don't then you will get arrested but again is this really that different with the restaurant. Imagine what would happen if after the meal you refused to pay the bill. Odds are one of two things would happen. Ether they would angrily make you leave and refuse to do service with you ever again or they would call the police and have you arrested. The government however is in the unique position in that they're only left the option of arresting you.

[Gario]

How is that a different view on taxes? That's technically the correct view on it, as that's precisely what a tax is. A more interesting question is why this definition on taxes is ever put into question by people at all... :/

[morefngdbs]

Look at the complaints by people this way....its not that they pay for services. Its those (particularly those very wealthy) who pay little or nothing at all !
Then there are the big corporations that don't pay tax on anything but their profits & they can write off any & all expenses , which along with deferral of payment etc , means they are benefitting from infrastructure, police ,fire, military etc etc etc ...but show they made "no profit" so they pay nothing !

In my trade as an example, guy's pay at least 50% of their pay check to taxes, U I (unemployment insurance, workman's compensation & Government pension plan...plus if you are in a medical plan or Company pension plan you pay more)
So I see guys who make $32.00 an hour, who are working between 55 & 60 hours a week, earning around 40 hrs @32.00 = 1280.00 plus 15 hrs @ 1.5 is $48.00 per hour = $ 720 in over time = 2000.00 a week or more (remember there is no premium time on here for meal penalty or double or triple time etc, which happens a lot.)

So on a 2 grand earnings a week 850 - 950 is their usual take home.

That's a lot of your check to see disappearing every single week ....& you hear the banksters & CEO's make millions, but pay little or nothing.

Complaints IMO are justified.
If we are going to pay taxes, everyone should have to pay an equal share. or the system is flawed

Then there is the waste of taxpayers money. That is a massive problem. Politicians give themselves large raises, but say workers that same year can only get Cost of living increases, or Minimum wage earners get even less.... As the system is presently set up, complaints are justified.

[Jmayer20]

To morefngdbs

I agree with you. Taxes should be done fairly and the rich are taxed way too little. I am not saying that all complaints on how taxes are collected and how much various people and groups are taxed are invalid. In fact those are good points. What I am pointing out is that one should not view taxes as the government trying to steal from you. One should look at it like a bill for services that the government provided to you.

( A Side note you said that taxes should be done fairly. Do you think that should include churches and other religious centers of worship or should they remain exempt from taxes?)

[RacistBassist]

To continue your metaphor, the people who generally have a problem with paying the bill of the service is they will go in for a house salad and maybe a fountain drink while the table next to them has a three course meal with multiple mixed drinks and you're both expected to split the bill.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/8/14 03:14 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: A lot of people tend to view taxes as the government stealing money from you but here is a different view on it. Taxes are us paying a bill for government services.

Wow, this a totally different and original view. Nobody has ever said this before. Thank you for sharing your great intellect with us.

Here is a comparison. Lets say you go to a restaurant and have a good meal there. Are you at all surprised when they hand you a bill for the meal and the service that you received? Would the owners that expect you to pay that bill be stealing your money? Of course not. Its the same with the government. They provide us with various services. Services like public education, a large military that protects us from both foreign and domestic threats, law enforcement that protects us from criminals, a fire department to put out fires, etc.

The reason the two are different is precisely because one chooses to dine out at a restaurant, but one has to pay income taxes regardless of whether they use government services OR the monopoly or effective monopoly that government has on a number of services means they have no choice but to consume those services.

So you have to pay for public schooling even if you don't use public schooling. And additionally the fact that public schooling is free to use means that there is an artificially small number of people using private education and so this leads to an artificially small private school market which makes private education too expensive for a lot of people.

I mean, even if you think it's perfectly reasonable and desirable for the government to collect taxes and monopolize various services, the fact remains that it is really quite distinct from the voluntary exchange that occurs in your restaurant example.

And what fraction of the defense budget is really necessary to defend America? A very small one, I'd imagine.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/8/14 04:29 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Its those (particularly those very wealthy) who pay little or nothing at all !

What on earth are you talking about? The top 10% of income earners pay close to 70% of federal income taxes.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but the claim they "pay little or nothing at all" is complete nonsense. The claim of course is not based on an actual understanding of the US tax system but instead nonsense spread by the likes of Warren Buffet.

Then there are the big corporations that don't pay tax on anything but their profits & they can write off any & all expenses , which along with deferral of payment etc , means they are benefitting from infrastructure, police ,fire, military etc etc etc ...but show they made "no profit" so they pay nothing !

Corporate income tax accounts for around 10% of federal tax receipts, and there's also whatever proportion that employers pay of payroll taxes (which account for almost 50% of federal tax receipts). So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that corporations don't pay any taxes (some talking head on MSNBC or the young turks, I'd imagine).

Also, profit is either reinvested into their business, which is good because it leads to economic growth (more jobs/higher real wages ceteris paribus), or it gets taken out in the form of income (executive salaries, shareholder dividends etc.) which is subject to an income tax anyway.

At 10/8/14 04:04 PM, Gario wrote: as that's precisely what a tax is.

If the government stopped providing any services to citizens, would taxes cease to be taxes?

No, of course not. Although a portion of taxes are used for public services, they are not dependent upon this fact for them to still be considered taxation.

Also, the fact that there's no real (positive) correlation between consumption of government services and the tax you must pay the government further illustrates the invalidity of your definition.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/9/14 02:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/8/14 04:29 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Its those (particularly those very wealthy) who pay little or nothing at all !

What on earth are you talking about? The top 10% of income earners pay close to 70% of federal income taxes.

;;; & earn what 90% or more of the countries income ?

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but the claim they "pay little or nothing at all" is complete nonsense. The claim of course is not based on an actual understanding of the US tax system but instead nonsense spread by the likes of Warren Buffet.

Then there are the big corporations that don't pay tax on anything but their profits & they can write off any & all expenses , which along with deferral of payment etc , means they are benefitting from infrastructure, police ,fire, military etc etc etc ...but show they made "no profit" so they pay nothing !

Corporate income tax accounts for around 10% of federal tax receipts, and there's also whatever proportion that employers pay of payroll taxes (which account for almost 50% of federal tax receipts). So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that corporations don't pay any taxes (some talking head on MSNBC or the young turks, I'd imagine).

payroll taxes are not company taxes, they are the taxes paid to the Government OFF the the employee's earnings. So its not the Corp paying taxes, its the worker. Get your facts straight.

Also, profit is either reinvested into their business, which is good because it leads to economic growth (more jobs/higher real wages ceteris paribus), or it gets taken out in the form of income (executive salaries, shareholder dividends etc.) which is subject to an income tax anyway.

;;;
You know little or nothing about corporate taxes & the loop holes involved my friend ....I own a corporate tax paying business. I am the owner, CEO & as a non traded business 100% of the stocks in my company , belong to me.

I drive a car & a truck, both completely owned by the company, the truck is 100% tax write off, maintenance, insurance, fuel etc. etc. etc.
the car is at 50% , receipts are kept logs done on both vehicles.
All rentals are tax exempted. Meals 50kms or further from home (I purposely live 60 kilometres from my place of business) are tax deductible 50% or more for me 100% for business . Tools, my purchased property's, shop expenses, offices home office, furnishing , safety gear etc etc etc
clothing, computers, smart phones , the plans to operate them, etc etc etc etc.

My tax bill for a business making in the mid 6 digits last year was under 4% when compared to my Gross income, sure it was considerable higher on my "profit" ...but i didn't make much of a profit & by using an independent outside Accounting firm to go over all my business expenses, earnings etc. who in this country are obligated to immediately report to the Government tax regulators ANY perceived instances of irregularity. I once again got all my T-50's & 2200 documentation as an in good standing tax paying business.

So unless 'you play the corporate game' don't talk to me about how much taxes corporations pay in comparison to their earnings. the ability to defer monies is another perfectly legal money option to offset profits for tax reasons.

The ways business can cut their taxable level a worker cannot even dream of is borderline criminal, but with paid professional "tax advisers" accountants & book keepers who take you to the line, but keep you from crossing it, so that you remain legal. You will be amazed at what you can spend that is legally 'tax deductible' !

Oh yes, church's are businesses, & like any business they should be taxed, not that they'd pay much , but even 4% is better than 0% ~;p

[Camarohusky]

At 10/8/14 10:49 PM, RacistBassist wrote: To continue your metaphor, the people who generally have a problem with paying the bill of the service is they will go in for a house salad and maybe a fountain drink while the table next to them has a three course meal with multiple mixed drinks and you're both expected to split the bill.

Well, if the wealthy were taxed at a proper rate... Yuk Yuk Yuk

Your metaphor is off. Think of it like a $50 fee to enter a party. Sure, some people may take more of the complimentary food and drinks than others do, but most of your $50 goes to pay for the background stuff that benefits everyone there, whether you notice it or not.

Same with taxes here. Most of what you pay in taxes goes to things that generate the basis of the safe and stable economy upon which we all rely and live in. Things as simple as food stamps which seem like robbing peter to pay aul actually assist peter by keeping big box stores like walmart in business providing a stable place for peter to shop, and creating jobs for peter's friends and family.

[Jmayer20]

To SadisticMonkey

First you acted sarcastic about my title saying "nobody every thought about taxes this way before". Perhaps the title wasn't the best but try to under stand when I said "A different view on taxes" I did not mean that this was an original or new idea. I was referring to the fact that it was different from the idea of the government trying to steal money from us through taxes.

Second you make the claim that we are forced to pay for the governments services, however you have a choice. You can drop everything leave civilization, go to the wilderness and live in a cave or in a tree in the middle of a forest. Try living like that for a year and see if you can honestly say you prefer that to paying taxes. The government provides these various services but in the end when it comes down to it, you are paying the bill to run a civilization because living out in the wilderness sucks. Really complaining that the government makes you pay taxes is about as ridiculous as complaining that your land lord makes you pay rent.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/9/14 09:51 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ;;; & earn what 90% or more of the countries income ?

Are you incapable of maintaining a coherent argument between even two posts?

You said: "who pay little or nothing at all !"

Even if you think they don't pay their 'fair share', they absolutely do not "pay little or nothing at all". They're paying over 40% of their income in taxes.

payroll taxes are not company taxes, they are the taxes paid to the Government OFF the the employee's earnings. So its not the Corp paying taxes, its the worker. Get your facts straight.

In addition to income tax withholding, payroll taxes also include social security, medicare and unemployment taxes that are paid by the employer.

I own a corporate tax paying business. I am the owner, CEO & as a non traded business 100% of the stocks in my company , belong to me.

Surprised you have time to post on a shitty politics forum then.

My tax bill for a business making in the mid 6 digits last year was under 4% when compared to my Gross income, sure it was considerable higher on my "profit" ...but i didn't make much of a profit & by using an independent outside Accounting firm to go over all my business expenses, earnings etc. who in this country are obligated to immediately report to the Government tax regulators ANY perceived instances of irregularity. I once again got all my T-50's & 2200 documentation as an in good standing tax paying business.

Nice anecdote.

So unless 'you play the corporate game' don't talk to me about how much taxes corporations pay

Oh piss off.

The ways business can cut their taxable level a worker cannot even dream of is borderline criminal, but with paid professional "tax advisers" accountants & book keepers who take you to the line, but keep you from crossing it, so that you remain legal.

Companies don't engage in consumption, people do. And people (e.g. executives) consume using their incomes and incomes get taxed. So it doesn't really matter that companies make a large profit because if/when it gets taken out for private consumption, it will be taxed.

You will be amazed at what you can spend that is legally 'tax deductible' !

Sure, but that doesn't mean that tax deductions that are ultimately non-investment in nature are necessarily a significant proportion of total tax deductions. How many meals does it take to equal the capital expenditure of a large project?

Oh yes, church's are businesses, & like any business they should be taxed, not that they'd pay much , but even 4% is better than 0% ~;p

No, they aren't and in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/9/14 11:01 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: Second you make the claim that we are forced to pay for the governments services, however you have a choice. You can drop everything leave civilization, go to the wilderness and live in a cave or in a tree in the middle of a forest. Try living like that for a year and see if you can honestly say you prefer that to paying taxes.

So you're really just proving my point here. Government monopolizes things so they have be purchased from the government, so then you don't have a choice from who you purchase something, but instead you have to choose between accessing those services or not. Gee, how voluntary.

It's like if I break into your house and steal all your money, and then use a portion of that money to buy you groceries. Is it no longer theft because you choose to eat the groceries I bought for you (considering you're unable to afford food yourself any more)?

At 10/9/14 09:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, if the wealthy were taxed at a proper rate... Yuk Yuk Yuk

Proper rate of course meaning higher than whatever the rate is at any given moment.

Your metaphor is off. Think of it like a $50 fee to enter a party. Sure, some people may take more of the complimentary food and drinks than others do, but most of your $50 goes to pay for the background stuff that benefits everyone there, whether you notice it or not.

Except you have no choice on whether or not you go the party. You're missing the point of the analogy (not metaphor), because you're arguing that it's good that [rich people pay more taxes]. That wasn't the point, but rather that taxes aren't fees for services the way the original restaurant analogy of the OP suggested they are.

Same with taxes here. Most of what you pay in taxes goes to things that generate the basis of the safe and stable economy upon which we all rely and live in.

1. Most is an exaggeration.
2. To the extent it's even true, it assumes that only government can provide these 'things'.

Things as simple as food stamps which seem like robbing peter to pay aul actually assist peter by keeping big box stores like walmart in business providing a stable place for peter to shop, and creating jobs for peter's friends and family.

1. Again, this misses the point. You're saying that its good that other people pay for poor people's services, which goes to show why taxes really aren't the same as exchanging money for goods and services privately.

2. That means ultimately that you're robbing peter to pay walmart, or robbing corporation A who receives less/no food-stamp to pay walmart. Again, doesn't mean it's necessarily "bad" as far as society is concerned, but it illustrates the disconnect between taxes and services received from the government, which was the original point of the OP.

[Jmayer20]

To SadisticMonkey

OHHH so your saying that we don't NEED a government in order to have a civilization. Well I'll be here when you decide to come back from la la land, with all the fairies, unicorns, and everyone is dancing around hand in hand singing like smurfs.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/10/14 12:46 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: OHHH so your saying that we don't NEED a government in order to have a civilization.

Well empirically speaking civilization predates governments, but aside from that I mostly meant that many of the services provided by the government can be provided privately.

It's like if the government nationalized the footwear industry and a few generations pass and you're there saying "privatize the footwear industry? that's insane! the market couldn't provide shoes the way government does! they would be far too expensive and the quality would be really low, and poor people would have no shoes and only the rich could afford shoes!"

[Camarohusky]

At 10/10/14 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/10/14 12:46 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: OHHH so your saying that we don't NEED a government in order to have a civilization.

Well empirically speaking civilization predates governments, but aside from that I mostly meant that many of the services provided by the government can be provided privately.

Empirically hogwash. The existence of a form of government is a vital criteria for civilization.

[morefngdbs]

Surprised you have time to post on a shitty politics forum then.

;;;
Surprised...no you are just uninformed aka STUPID in this area.
You see uninformed one, there is the receptionist, the book keeper, an office manager ...get it yet ?
I have people who work for me &
Because I am also a UNION member (you know those of us dirty capitalist pig workers who believe we deserve a decent wage & benefit for our labours)
I have Business agents & Union staff to assist in Contract negotiations with employers ....employers that hire companies with (gasp) Union crews.

So yeah I have a little time on my hands sometimes ...but I load out for a commercial tomorrow & sunday , so i will be working (I'm actually in my office right now so technically ...I am at work)

And payroll taxes, EI, etc etc etc are not PAYed by me to Government ...my workers EARN THEM & I submit those remittences, just like I submit their pay to those who , by law , I am required to pay it to. (because a workers pay can also be garnished & I would then submit the required garnishment to the agency (court, tax office etc)
If one of my workers doesn't work ....I'm not required to submit money for taxes, EI or medical etc ....only on monies the worker EARNS ...then whatever is left over ....they get .

Saying that My Company paid 40% in payroll taxes is bull shit.
If I had no employees, except for example myself. I wouldn't have to submit anything. I don't pay EI for myself , I'm not allowed to
I don't pay income taxes on my wages, until year end , when its decided by my accountant how much I made .... then & if I decide to pay myself the minimum I can make before taxes, I can & have worked & paid nothing in taxes, Corporate or personal for a year , on mid 6 figure company earnings ( notice the word EARNINGS)
totally different than the word PROFITS ...which is what my & all companies are actually taxed on ~;P

The churches comment was direct dot someone else ...& IMO is very relevant, because religion is big business.

[Jmayer20]

To SadisticMonkey

I don't know what you think a government is but I assure you that a tribal/clan leader IS a form of government and that existed long before civilization. But even if we except YOUR version of "civilization" and government you still cant deny that you need a government for a modern civilization.

Second here is a different comparison from your "foot wear example". Going back to the restaurant. When you pay the bill are you really only paying for what it costed to provide you with the meal and service. Of course not. The owners are also having you pay for their profit. They then take that money and spend it on things that they want. How dare those people except you to provide money for some of the things THEY want. Not just what YOU want. After all the world clearly revolves around you so why should you have to pay for more then purely what you want in the transaction.

This is the same with the government taxing you. You agree with many of the things that the government spends your money on and can not get all these services without the government. You need the government to get these services just like you need the restaurant for there services. That's why you should look at the government expenditures on things you don't want the same as the restaurant owner spending money that he got from you on things that they want and before you use that bullshit line about how you have to pay the governments taxes but don't have to go to the restaurant remember I already pointed out a choice to you earlier. If you want to live in our civilization then pay the bill for it. If you don't want to pay the bill then go live in the wilderness. It's that fucking simple.

(At this point I have explained this in a way that a child could understand so if you still cant get it through your thick skull then i'm just going to assume that you are either trolling or that you are a hopeless moron.)

[Camarohusky]

At 10/10/14 10:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Surprised

I am surprised that if you are the sole owner of a business, why would you ever pick a corporate business structure? It needlessly subjects you to more taxes for benefits you don't use (save the title of President or CEO). The only benefit of a corporation over other models is the ease of transfering ownership interest. The downsides of a corporation are that it taxes your income AND your stock income, and that it requires you to jump through tons of hoops to retain corporate status (should you be pulled into court).

Then again, Canada may have slightly different rules.

[Feoric]

At 10/10/14 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Well empirically speaking civilization predates governments, but aside from that I mostly meant that many of the services provided by the government can be provided privately.

Such as?

[cga-999]

At 10/8/14 03:14 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: A lot of people tend to view taxes as the government stealing money from you but here is a different view on it. Taxes are us paying a bill for government services. Here is a comparison. Lets say you go to a restaurant and have a good meal there. Are you at all surprised when they hand you a bill for the meal and the service that you received? Would the owners that expect you to pay that bill be stealing your money? Of course not. Its the same with the government. They provide us with various services. Services like public education, a large military that protects us from both foreign and domestic threats, law enforcement that protects us from criminals, a fire department to put out fires, etc.

So why then are people surprised when the government expects us to pay for these services? Now many of you are probably thinking that the government forces you to pay and if you don't then you will get arrested but again is this really that different with the restaurant. Imagine what would happen if after the meal you refused to pay the bill. Odds are one of two things would happen. Ether they would angrily make you leave and refuse to do service with you ever again or they would call the police and have you arrested. The government however is in the unique position in that they're only left the option of arresting you.

That is basically just the definition of tax without as much bias. Anyone who sees your view as "different" obviously has little to no understanding of politics. Every government has to be able to afford their necessities in some way, so taxes are a good way to cover it.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/10/14 09:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Empirically hogwash. The existence of a form of government is a vital criteria for civilization.

So your ideology trumps empirical evidence?

Cool.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/10/14 11:24 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: Second here is a different comparison from your "foot wear example". Going back to the restaurant. When you pay the bill are you really only paying for what it costed to provide you with the meal and service. Of course not. The owners are also having you pay for their profit. They then take that money and spend it on things that they want. How dare those people except you to provide money for some of the things THEY want. Not just what YOU want.

Except I CHOSE to give them the money. The profit they make it the cost of them providing me a service and I determined that the price of the service/food is worth it (or it isn't worth it and I don't buy anything). I see a steak for $20, I think it's a fair price and I get my steak. He gets his $20, and what he does with it is not my concern because I agreed that $20 was a fair price for the steak.

It's not at all analogous to taxation. Taxation is the restaurant owner having a monopoly, forcing me to pay him huge sums of money against my will and then deciding what I get to eat.

After all the world clearly revolves around you so why should you have to pay for more then purely what you want in the transaction.

No, because that was the entire point of your original post, that taxation is fees paid for services rendered

This is the same with the government taxing you. You agree with many of the things that the government spends your money on and can not get all these services without the government.

The reason i can't get many of these services without the government is precisely because of the government. It's like breaking my legs and being there with crutches and thinking that you're being helpful to me.

That's why you should look at the government expenditures on things you don't want the same as the restaurant owner spending money that he got from you on things that they want

Businesses offer services and you can can agree to pay for them or not pay at all if you don't want to, and if you do pay you get the previously agreed upon services (and if the services are no good you can even get a refund). If you want more services, you agree to pay more money and you will receive those services i.e. the amount you pay is dependent upon your consumption of services.
Government takes a huge chunk of your money whether you want them to or not and then decides what services you receive if any. The amount you pay (i.e. is taken from by) the government is in no way whatsoever associated with how many of these services you receive and they can give you different services than what they said they would and if they're bad services then you're still out of pocket. You can't choose not to pay and you can't choose to pay less by consuming less.

and before you use that bullshit line about how you have to pay the governments taxes but don't have to go to the restaurant remember I already pointed out a choice to you earlier. If you want to live in our civilization then pay the bill for it. If you don't want to pay the bill then go live in the wilderness.

You said that taxes are money for receiving services, now its the cost for some abstract and vague 'maintenance of 'civilization'. Have some fucking consistency.

AGAIN, taxes are in no way associated with your consumption of government services, and you can pay taxes without using government services and use government services without paying taxes, and paying more taxes has nothing to do with your consumption of government services

And see how idiotic your idea of "choice" is? Government monopolies society and destroys the non- state alternatives to many aspects of life that would otherwise exist, and then if you don't like it you can leave. And heck, if you do go and live in the wild, they'll follow you out there and fine you for breaking some idiotic regulations like erecting a structure without a permit even if you're in the middle of some vast tract of wilderness.

[Elfer]

I think we can all agree that taxation is not the same thing as retail or most other private enterprise. It's the government (which ostensibly represents society) appropriating money from its constituents for what is ostensibly the greater good. This means every dollar of taxation should provide more than one dollar in value.

Unless you want to entirely do away with private enterprise, this means that (in my opinion) there are basically two situations where a government should be running a service:

1) Natural Monopolies

These are typically obvious. This is a situation where you can't possibly derive benefit from competition, because it's a "you have it or you don't" situation, rather than a scalable, fluid economy. Good examples of natural monopolies typically owned (or at least heavily regulated) by governments would be things like highways or electrical transmission infrastructure. It doesn't make sense to have two highways that cover the same path, and basically by having one highway, you've created a barrier to entry so high that no competitors have access to entry into the market. For electricity, although there's an obvious market for competitors to produce electricity, again, it doesn't make sense to have multiple grids.

A good example of where private industry owns a natural monopoly would be telecommunications infrastructure. In any given place, there is usually one player that owns the "last mile" for a given infrastructure, be it cable, DSL, or fiber optic. This shuts out these markets to any other competitors, giving these companies no incentive to upgrade the infrastructure if it's cheaper to ignore it and gouge consumers. For a long time, telecommunications was regulated as a utility (price controlled), but they fought for deregulation on the basis that they needed more money to build a fiber-optic network that would provide faster, cheaper service. Of course, not having any competitors in the market to build such a network, the instead pocketed the money and built nothing, which is why today, North America is falling well behind in terms of telecom infrastructure, even compared to much poorer countries.

Another example would be the Ambassador Bridge. Currently, this privately-owned, 85-year-old Detroit-Windsor bridge carries about 25% of all Canada-US trade. The owner has frequently refused to make upgrades to the bridge, which eventually ended up being completed by governments anyway. Now that the governments are trying to resolve the issue by building a new international crossing that links directly with high-capacity corridors on both sides (rather than smaller residential streets), the owner of the bridge is suing them for creating an unfair market. Basically, a project that is advantageous for society is being jammed up by the current de facto monopoly owner.

2) Asymmetric Markets

This one is more debatable. This is what I think of as markets where the interests of the firms and customers are misaligned, or where firms are in a position that gives them a lot of leverage over the customers.

A symmetric market would be, for example, cell phone handsets. People don't need them, but they want them. Firms provide different models to choose from, and compete on features, price, etc. People want to hand over money for phones, firms want to hand over phones for money, everyone's happy.

An example of an asymmetric market would be healthcare. Unlike consumer goods, healthcare can put you in a situation where if you don't get it, you'll die. This puts the firms providing it in a hugely powerful position, because the customers can be very desperate. Another issue is that while presumably, the customer's wish is to be as healthy as possible, the firm's incentive is to earn money by providing health services. This creates a perverse incentive to focus on curative rather than preventive healthcare, because while preventive healthcare is better for society, curative healthcare is more profitable for firms.

----

Anyway, that's just my take on it. Let's try not to dumb down the debate too much by arguing against a very narrow analogy rather than the broader issues.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/10/14 06:41 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So your ideology trumps empirical evidence?

First off, this is ironic coming from the guy who posted an opinion piece youtube video by an overtly an unabashedly biased party.

Second, The video dramatically misstates what civilization is. It is a general consensus that social hierarchy and complexity is a core criterion for something to be considered, academically, civilization.

You're trying to say that if you put wheels on a box it's automatically an automobile and then trying to say "SEE self locootion isn't necessary for something to be an automobile!!!" While self locomotion may not be necessary to create a moving car, self locomotion is a core element of what it means to be an automobile.

Same for civlization. While a society can exist without a complex government, and has before, true civlization as defined by acadmic scholars requires the complex social hierarchy, i.e. a government.

Also, I would not only say you are flat out wrong on the facts (find a way to blame black people for that one), your point fails on basic logic. You claim these people had no government because they were egalitarian. But wait. Egalitarianism IS a form of governance. People give to the community because they know they will recieve back in kind. They also steer clear of doing things that hurt the communiyt as, again, the community will respond in kind. In short, an egalitarian society still had laws and still required the parting with one's own things for the betterment of the community (sounds like a tax to me).

Heck, even your poorly made and academically flawed youtube video had it better off than you. It doesn;t claim no government existed. It says no state existed. Then it goes on to completely and wholly ignore why the concept of the state was created and why it became necessary for prosperity. Like others have said, if you truly want to live without the state, go live as a hermit in the forest. Wait, not in a US forest though, as the state keeps those forest fre of brigands and bandits for you. Same goes for any developed nation's forests and most third world nations as well. I think the ilds of north eastrn Nigeria would better fit your political ideology, but you better keep yourself protected. They slit people's genitalia for fun out there.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/11/14 12:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, this is ironic coming from the guy who posted an opinion piece youtube video by an overtly an unabashedly biased party.

people of newgrounds, I present to you Camarohusky, the only unbiased man in the world.

Same for civlization. While a society can exist without a complex government, and has before, true civlization as defined by acadmic scholars requires the complex social hierarchy, i.e. a government.

Well what academic scholars define things as is irrelevent to the discussion.

You claim these people had no government because they were egalitarian.

No, they had no government because they had no government.

But wait. Egalitarianism IS a form of governance.

That's fucking idiotic and you know it.

Heck, even your poorly made and academically flawed youtube video had it better off than you. It doesn;t claim no government existed. It says no state existed.

State meaning government. Duh.

Then it goes on to completely and wholly ignore why the concept of the state was created

Even if it's agreed that the existence of states is a good thing, states were absolutely NOT created because everyone got together and decided that it would good if government existed.

Like others have said, if you truly want to live without the state, go live as a hermit in the forest.

I'm not saying I "truly want to live without a state", I'm saying that the state doesn't give you the choice of not living under its control and therefore its idiotic to compare taxation to transacting with a private business. If you're going to compeltely ignore hte point of a thread why bother responding?

Wait, not in a US forest though, as the state keeps those forest fre of brigands and bandits for you.

See, no choice. You really have no choice to live free from the state which is precisely why the "view on taxes" is fucking idiotic.

Same goes for any developed nation's forests and most third world nations as well. I think the ilds of north eastrn Nigeria would better fit your political ideology, but you better keep yourself protected.

That's not what this thread or what my posts were about.

They slit people's genitalia for fun out there.

Yeah they truly are our equals, huh?

[MrPercie]

Because the thieving cunts in government aren't paying theirs.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/11/14 09:03 AM, MrPercie wrote: Because the thieving cunts in government aren't paying theirs.

A small and easily fixable injustice in a system is not reason to villify the entire system. Just fix the problem.

[Jmayer20]

WOW, its clear that SadisticMonkey is completely stuck in la la land.

First I said, "This is the same with the government taxing you. You agree with many of the things that the government spends your money on and can not get all these services without the government."

In response he said, "The reason i can't get many of these services without the government is precisely because of the government. It's like breaking my legs and being there with crutches and thinking that you're being helpful to me"

This is a guy that thinks that we can get all the services that the government provides us without the government and that it is only because of the government that we can't get these services on our own. He believes that somehow with out a government to organize and regulate things that we can have a military, public schools, hire teachers, hire law enforcers like police, create enforce and regulate various laws, print and distribute money to the various banks, etc, etc, etc.

He must believes in magic. I mean how else could you explain how he believes that all this stuff could exist without a government. Where does the army come from? Magic. How do the soldiers in this army get their food, water, and other supplies needed? Magic. Where do the laws come from? Simple they just magically appear. What keeps the citizens following these laws and deals with the law breakers. Simple without a government everyone would magically become nice happy and kind. All the rapists, murders, thieves, arsonists, and all other kinds of criminals would suddenly become law abiding citizens. Then everyone will hold hands and dance and sing like smurfs.

However in the REAL world all this can only exist in ones mind. Oh and before some dumb ass says "well a company can do a lot of these things." keep in mind that if a company took care of all these things then that company would become the government. A much more tyrannical government at that.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/10/14 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/10/14 10:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Surprised

I am surprised that if you are the sole owner of a business, why would you ever pick a corporate business structure? It needlessly subjects you to more taxes for benefits you don't use (save the title of President or CEO). The only benefit of a corporation over other models is the ease of transfering ownership interest. The downsides of a corporation are that it taxes your income AND your stock income, and that it requires you to jump through tons of hoops to retain corporate status (should you be pulled into court).

Then again, Canada may have slightly different rules.

;;;
A lot different rule.

To start with many of the Companies i do Business with are USA based or European based. These companies do not want to do business with unregistered companies in Canada.
You see there was a time you could register a 'business, self proprietor owned & operated' run it for under a year bankrupt it & the companies you did business with could be held liable for the taxes that , were not collected from bankrupt company, that said foreign business was required to pay.. . probably did pay & would now be dragged before CRA to prove it 7 could be required to pay again.
So once word got out to companies that do business here that this could happen with 'sole proprietors, they became reluctant to do business with them , even though the majority were legitimate.

SO now any company that's CFA , (Comes From Away) asks for 1- your corporate registration number, that is searchable online with the Provincial Registry of Joint stocks & Deeds.
Shows you are a legitimate registered Corporate company.
2- your HST number, shows you are a tax paying registered company with the Federal Government
3- A, T 2200 form - the coversheet of that return from the latest tax year showing you are in good standing with the tax man.

This then gives the outside company a show of due diligence that who they are doing business with in Canada is a legitimate company .
In my case it then makes me an attractive supplier of rental equipment, labour, consultation for rigging etc etc.
AND let us not forget
Makes it extremely easy for me to then put vehicles, property, have bank account(s) & credit cards in my company name. Hugely advantageous to WRITING OFF unbelievable amounts of expenses the average worker can never dream of. Being a corporation of 1 has so many advantages , that they outweigh the disadvantages by a very large margin.

And its all legal , as long as you file correctly, which is why I use an outside book keeper & An independent accounting agency, which in this country is obligated by their charter (chartered accountants) to immediately report to CRA (income tax people) any discrepancies, questionable dealings etc.

I've been doing it for so long now , I don't really know how it works for regular workers, except I see their paysheety breakdowns & how much of their checks gets sucked up by the tax man !

[Camarohusky]

At 10/16/14 07:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote: A lot different rule.

Well, before I try to process what at first glance appears to be legal gibberish (yes, as an attorney, I still can say that), let me ask one thing.

Are there other business entity options in Canada?

I mean, here in the US we have:
Sole proprietor
GP - General partnership
LP - Limited Partnership
LLP - Limited Liability Partnership
LLLP Limited Liability Limited Partnership
PC - Professional service corporation
LLC - Limited Liability Company
S Corp - Corporation with special tax election
C Corp - Standard Corporation

All have different liability structures, different management structures, different levels of ownership transferability, and different tax consequences.

From first glance (a VERY cursory read) of your post it almost sound slike Canada has Sole Proprietorship or corporation and nothing else. Possible seeing the US only had Sole, GP, and Corp even just 100 or so years ago.