Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Tax Office Targets Webcam Strippers
Sweden's tax authorities are cracking down on unreported webcam stripper income. They estimate that hundreds of Swedish women are dodging the law, resulting in a tax loss of about 40m Swedish kronor (£3.3m) annually. The search involves tax officials examining stripper websites, hours upon hours, for completely legitimate purposes. A slightly disheveled project leader said 200 Swedish strippers had been investigated so far, adding the total could be as much as 500. "They are young girls, we can see from the photos. We think that perhaps they are not well informed about the rules," he said.
Who are they, their pimps?
"I'd like to volunteer for this job myself."
Are they hiring?
...do these people land these porn watching jobs?
Mind you, I'd probably look a little disheveled too if I had to watch porn for a living.
http://www.bistolas.net
OK, so what red-blooded geek male *wouldn't* want that job, tracking down the perps?
"When we investigated the sites manually it worked better," he added.
What he really meant to say was, there was a lot more motivation and job satisfaction when they investigated it manually.
They are being sure to give this close, personal attention.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
It's bad for an economy when an entrepreneur has to first take into consideration the taxes before engaging in a business enterprise or even consider them. That's just idiotic.
Taxes are a necessity for a society, but when they become a burden and retard entrepreneurial activity, then its tax structure needs to be examined.
Yes, BTW, I think prostitution should be legal.
"They are young girls, we can see from the photos. We think that perhaps they are not well informed about the rules," he said.
People are almost never well informed about the rules. When I left school, I didn't get a book of laws that informed me I'd have to pay tax (and how). The only reason I knew what to do was because I took advice from other self employed family members, so I've paid all my taxes throughout the years, no problems.
But.. a lot of people sell things at casual sales, barter services, and do things online without paying tax. It's wrong, but I have a little sympathy for them, because this stuff just isn't taught in schools and the authorities don't go to any lengths to inform people about taxation issues. I mean, how many regular folks who barter things pay the tax on those transactions? Most people I know wouldn't even realize they have to!
I'll bet it did.
Hey now, what better way to jump start the global economy than busting tax-evading strippers... This could bring in billions... Wait... MILLIONS!
They estimate that hundreds of Swedish women are dodging the law, resulting in a tax loss of about 40m Swedish kronor (£3.3m) annually.
- same kinds of losses that RIAA and MPAA and some software firms are complaining about when they are talking about potential sales that were lost.
I am always against taxes, these taxes are some of the more ridiculous ones.
You can't handle the truth.
Tax agents get to do what? **preps a resume for the IRS**
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I believe they also had a problem with a large Federal Government, which is the reason that there wasn't any provision for it to tax the citizens directly.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Times a few million divided by number of skin dealers
Either Slashdot is 9 days behind on its calendar or we've just discovered the best job in the world. If the latter, how do I sign up to work as an investigator for the Swedish government?
EvilCON - Made Famous by
"When we investigated the sites manually it worked better," he added. --------------- Unfortunately efficiency went out the window with only the most hormonal investigators able to handle more then 3 or 4 strip shows a day.
where's the alt tag for this story's photo?
There you have it folks: your government acting as the racketeer that they are (again?? lol). And what does the government provide, again, that will entitle them to their "fair share"? The webcams? The business model? The internet connectivity? The "office building"? The wires the stream goes through? The security (pathetic arrogant police)? WHAT EXACTLY? Swedes are taxed to death already in order to get some pathetic healthcare and free education. Now, don't tell me their healthcare is good, please! But this is the result of a mindless brain-dead swedish public who cannot fend for themselves and need the nanny-state to lead them on every step. How pathetic is that! However, this piece of news just proves how the state has been allowed to stick its arrogant snively nose everywhere, even people's pants. Swedish government, you are disgusting! BACK OFF!
I believe the technical term is "cam whore."
libertard, huh? ... oh, sorry, I'm supposed to bite (even though this is an article about Sweden).
Here ya go:
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
At the foundation of the United States, taxation == property taxes. Income taxes were never envisioned, and when they were passed after the Civil War to pay for reconstruction of the South, many commentators thought they were unconstitutional. Many people still think they are unconstitutional.
My blog
As a Swedish citizen, I'd like to remind you that Sweden is probably THE most liberal country in the world, and I mean liberal as in the European view, not the American one you have.
And yes, we're a representative democracy, and no, the monarchy have no powers, they are a PR stunt for Sweden internationally.
wow, I suddenly want a job at the Swedish Tax office doing *cough* research.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Because as we all know, every single one of the founding fathers made decisions in unison with an absolute agreement amongst themselves in a sealed off bubble from which they were only exposed to the true will of the people...
The founding fathers were some amazing thinkers, and we should continue to review their work to learn more about our experiment called Democracy. But they were far from infallible and rarely of one mind.
Lumping them all together in a homogenized "they" really whittles away a lot of the intricacies and strife that they dealt with in coming to compromises that lead to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
...in societies with a large, non-diverse population.
The best form of government is indeed the smallest possible, but even then there are things that the government does much better than individuals.
Taxes and government control works even better in democratic societies with group-think, such as Nordic societies and oriental societies.
All you have to do to see the benefits are to look at life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.28average_for_the_2005-2010_period.29
Another interesting point about this list: Notice that democratic countries *without* group think are significantly lower than those *with* group think.
You know if there wasn't any income taxes, we wouldn't have to pay more taxes to have government officials chasing down women trying to make a living.
I need a full report immediately. URLs, logins and passwords used for research, all imagery from the sites that will be in the corpus of evidence including videos, names, phone numbers, price structures, everything!
The search involves tax officials examining stripper websites, hours upon hours, for completely legitimate purposes.
We have a slightly different enforcement issue in the Seattle area. Illegal activity in a few strip clubs. The police department spends quite a bit of time and money sending undercover officers to buy lap dances from the women looking for violations. With public funds, of course.
OK guys, what about the activity in the gay clubs? Any volunteers for undercover duty?
[Sound of crickets.]
Have gnu, will travel.
Didn't you know? Ask Timothy Geithner he'll tell you.
Deleted
All that work for 3.3M in lost revenue? Sounds like a government employee who is trying to justify why he's watching all that porn at work.
A Swedish source (Google translation) says that there where a tax loss of 3.6 million SEK and the total income amounted to 40 million SEK, not that the tax loss was of 40 million SEK. The Swedish source also says nothing of these numbers being annually.
and still haven't had to pay a dime in taxes. I guess when you operate at a loss they nothing to tax.
Why do these young girls make so much money, while I (the hairy assed nerd), make nothing?
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
I'm not disagreeing with taxes but I thought I'd point out that the American founding fathers are not automatically right about everything. Isn't using "the American founding fathers said $X" as a reason for $X a bit lazy.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
If you have a relationship with a girl and she takes her clothes off and you give her thousands of dollars a year, it's not taxable.
Even if you were in a multiple spouse household, it would still be true (multiple guys supporting her).
Without the "relationship" (one date? you don't have to be living together in the same house), it's taxable.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
We examined every frame of this disgusting film. Twice!
They estimate the lost tax revenue at 3.3 million British pounds, which, according to Google, is 4.82724 million U.S. dollars. Let's round to 5 million USD.
Assuming that 5 police officers are paid the equivalent of 60,000 USD a year to do this, and that the investigation takes a year, this will cost Sweden the equivalent of 300,000 USD.
Shucks. So this would be worth it; they'd get a 16x to 17x return on investment... I guess investigating webcam strippers actually does make financial sense for Sweden.
(This of course assumes that their own estimates are accurate, and that mine are reasonable.)
File this one under "Lonely Swedish" ;-)
Clearly these strippers are an example of Aryan Supremacists attempting to bilk hapless men from around the world out of their money and outsource jobs that should rightfully go to other girls. Can't the European Union do something to stop these Hate Strippers?
Seastead this.
Not quite.
Lincoln instituted an income tax during the Civil War to pay for it. That tax was struck down as unconstitutional.
Wow, I really do not know what your comment adds to our discussion. Should I have broken down my comment into a list of those who approved of a large and powerful Federal Government and those who didn't, with names and weighed ratings either way?
Sure, lumping them all into a single "they" oversimplifies their position, but there is ample documented evidence that at least the majority was opposed to a centralized, all-powerful Federal Government, who thought that the power should be instead mostly concentrated on the States.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Except you know, they amended the Constitution to make them not unconstitutional. That's why the whole "amendment" procedure was included in the first place. How precisely can something be unconstitutional when a legally passed Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows it?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
What's the rate for the job of 'scanning the internet for Swedish strippers'? $8.00 an hour? Heck, if that's all I have to pay ...
Display some adaptability.
You're nitpicking and attacking a rather minor point. The OP stated that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America envisioned a country run by taxes. Since we are talking specificially about income taxes, the OP effectively implied that the Founding Fathers envisioned a country that was run by income taxes. I believe I effectively refuted this by pointing out that the income taxes were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers, especially since they wouldn't be enacted until well after they were all dead.
The fact that they passed an amendment had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Founding Fathers original vision for the country.
My blog
Someone should teach these girls to behave. They've being very naughty.
Only for the same reason an Amendment to the Constitution allowing murder is anathema to the document, so is the taxation amendment.
BTW the Supreme Court ruled the amendment conferred no new taxing authority
I can easily be a disheveled official, checking out Swedish pr0n....:D
Don't fear the penguins
You had a three sentence post. One of those sentences said "Many people still think they [income taxes] are unconstitutional." I responded to that sentence. How can a three sentence post have a "minor point"? There were only three points:
1) The founding fathers did not envision taxes.
2) They were probably unconstitutional when first implemented.
3) Many people still think they are.
They all received pretty close to the same amount of time. Your first two points are completely valid and largely unarguable. I was curious as to how you justify the third, given the facts. Or if you personally are not one of the people who believe the third; perhaps you know how the people who do believe it justify their belief.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
"You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square."
Did anyone else picture the opening military scene when reading this summary?
Why don't they get sweet and do deep pack-it inspection, stripping off headers and tails layer by layer? If they seductively conjugate (the details) better, they might get better symmetries. If they adjust the TTL to give better throughput, they might have a lasting, enjoyable union of data sexts... Maybe they should start sexting each other...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"At the foundation of the United States, taxation == property taxes. Income taxes were never envisioned,"
Of course, it's not clear if the founders preferred property taxes out of any sort of principle, or because in their day, income taxes were not remotely enforceable.
"when they were passed after the Civil War to pay for reconstruction of the South, many commentators thought they were unconstitutional."
They thought income taxes were a "direct" tax, and would need to be apportioned between the states according to the census, as specified in the Constitution. There was never any doubt that taxing income was in general constitutional.
"Many people still think they are unconstitutional."
Then they are idiots. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." isn't exactly vauge.
Speaking of relationships... Why is polygamy illegal?
In this day and age when "shacking up" is tolerated, and there are lots of out-of-wedlock children, "palimony", etc. What interest does the State have in even having bigamy laws on the books?
Take it from someone who has witnessed co-workers receiving suitcases full of cash with "John Doe" tax returns attached: When your illegal activity results in your prosecution and your illegal income is about to be revealed to the whole world, you'll sleep a lot better knowing that the IRS will not be in line to take a chunk out of your hide.
What's next? A tax on my greenhouse gas emissions after eating a big bowl of Pedro's Atomic Chile Con Carne?!
My guess is that those Swedish tax officials are just angry because strippers just aren't that interested in beancounters.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
This was totally not in the article...
Some days, I don't even take a lunch.
Boss: Jenkins whats your report on the webcam girls.
Jenkins: They are definitely being very naughty sir ... so, very, naughty.
Boss: Whats your recommendation.
Jenkins: Spankings!!!
for eating them beforehand, though. All that carbon being taken out of the system.
At least temporarily.
Oddly enough, the tax credit is about the tax burden.
We call it "the carbon cycle".
Unfortunately, unless your car exudes petrol, there's no tax credit for that.
And I, for one, am willing to pay a little to admire their flexibility!
This isn't a tax loss it's a tax opportunity loss. Just like lost sales due to "piracy" aren't lost sales they are lost sales opportunity. I hate it when people calculate these things like that. Just because someone pirated something does not mean they would have bought it. Thus it is not a lost sale and should not be counted as such. It drives the wrong behaviors and perspective.
-Xen
Given the pitiful percentage we pay for a social safety net in the US compared to most other industrialized democracies, it barely qualifies as a Welfare Hood let alone a Welfare State.
That is one of the best layman's explanations of income disparity I've ever read. Awesome! Blog that. :-)
Every woman who enters the sex industry is a head case. They have virtually NO self esteem and they use. Ask yourself, why does a woman do that? Many of them are actually pretty sharp, too. Some of them make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and they blow it. Some of it they blow up their noses.
Secondly, I see time and time again, men who give those people their hard earned money thinking that person "likes" them; hence why those women think men are losers and suckers. I'm not saying why I know this.
Comparing a stripper to a tech support engineer?!?! What?!?
God! I have to draw a picture every fucking time I post here! Jesus Fucking Christ!
There are no video links in the article.
-- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
Given the pitiful percentage we pay for a social safety net in the US compared to most other industrialized democracies, it barely qualifies as a Welfare Hood let alone a Welfare State
I would hardly call nearly 1.5 trillion a pitiful percentage. If anything, social programs are ruining the federal budget.
Mandatory Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest mandatory spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:
Social Security - $544 billion
Medicare - $325 billion
Medicaid - $186 billion
All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Militar
This is my sig.
Many years ago, back when the internet was only recently become a consumer-level, money-making prospect, I spent several months surfing porn for the IRS. I got my untraceable "investigative workstation" complete with exhaustive logging. The actual online work was done in a higher-level secure room. We had full discretion to begin our own investigations with required emphasis in just a couple of areas.
I'm sure the investigations continue to this day; soon after I started the job, the function that did the work moved to a different city and I chose not to follow the work. But in the few months I worked it, we were finding a few interesting things. First, the big porn companies were making too much money to want to deal with us; they were paying their taxes. Second, there were lots of small porn operators doing strip shows, live sex shows, and making custom niche market videos (mostly bestiality) whose compliance was middling to poor; they got forwarded for audit. Third, there were obscenity purveyors (mostly child porn) that were probably making a lot of money but we simply couldn't figure out who they were; most were offshore, anyway.
Finally, the first group of big crooks we managed to profile in some detail were rogue CPAs who were selling bogus tax advice for high prices. In those days, you could do outrageously stupid things with tax shelters that were obviously illegal but *if* you had relied on the advice of a "competent authority" to make those investment decisions then you could avoid expensive penalties when you finally got caught. Lots of CPAs just decided to drop out of doing real accountancy work and threw up web sites where they sold, typically, single-page letters for USD$5000 that informed you that whatever stupid tax dodge you were about to invest in was perfectly legal. When you got caught (if you got caught), you'd produce the letter and claim that you were an innocent victim who had relied on an accountant for advice. At that point, the Revenue Agents job got a lot harder; the RA would have to not only prove you did a bogus tax dodge but that you and some third party in another state knew it was bogus beforehand. Lots of RAs just threw up their hands and let people skate on some penalties. ALL those crooked CPAs, though, advertised on the internet and I'm proud to say that the project I worked on was instrumental in getting a bunch of them barred from practice.
My point? Getting paid to surf porn isn't so cool. The time always comes when you have to actually get some work done and the real work tends to be nowhere near as much fun as you might think.
That's the 16th Ammendment, not the original document. It was ratified in 1913. What part of 'ammendment' are you having difficulties understanding?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I think the "success" tax implies some truth. Success is ill defined especially if you're referring to monetary "success" which does not care if you're "good" or "bad". Taxing profit is merely a tax on top of a tax - that is to say that the profit generated by provided a service should be proportional to the amount of good it brings to a society, not to how efficiently you can undermine society in general.
This is why non-profits aren't taxed and why high earners are usually targeted for higher taxes- they often abuse the flaws of paper money(financial services) and buyout competition(Microsoft for instance), lobby for extremely unfair laws (telecoms, RIAA/MPAA) at extreme cost to society. There is a tipping point where monetary success (as with any sort of power metric) becomes social liability (too few people with too much power). Some of them are incredibly smart, but intelligence doesn't make one more likely to do good or the right thing. In many cases it's the opposite - they see opportunity where others see only a wall to prevent damage to society. The entire goal of capitalism is to trick these people into helping each other instead of robbing everyone blind.
But if everyone can earn their money and pay little or no tax then they have NO REASON to steal.
The protection I get for a $200k house, is the same as a 2m house. I dont see mansions with police patrol every 2 mins and armed guards?
The richer you get, the more you can afford to hire your own protection via technology and guards.
Own a 1m house, you can afford 10 cameras and 2 dogs. Own a 15m house, you can afford 24hr security guards.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
All federal taxes go in one column, govt debts in another, both cancel out.
Therefore zero taxes pay for services and military, its all due to corporate taxes and 'fees'.
To govt could default on debt, and then say, ok we have no income tax, everyones happy. If you lost 10000s in govt bonds, bad luck, you get to live now tax free.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I hate it when people strip the webcams off my computer!
So, other than helping citizens of the country, what pray tell, should the government do with its money?
It's not the governments's, yes plural, money. It money people work to earn. If people didn't have to pay income taxes they could both invest and spend more thus create more jobs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Read Galbraith's book, "The Great Crash", where he analyises the 1929 stock market crash.
Read how UCLA professors Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian's study concluded "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years. Others believe protectionism like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act made the Great Depression worse. After the US raised tariffs on imports other nations retaliated by raising their own tariffs against US goods. With US employers not able to sell goods internationally they could not pay employees.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Very highly paid people do very little work for each dollar they earn. This is not my opinion, it is simple mathematics.
So, a ditch digger should get paid more than an IT worker?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Remember, the whole point of corporations is to avoid personal responsibility while enhancing the owners wealth.
No the point of corporations is to serve the common or public good. See this.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, in the US, your fair share doesn't actually track your income. The middle-class carries the greatest tax burden. That's why the economy is so screwed--the middle class has been decimated.
According to FactCheck.org "The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income."
Where did you get your data from?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If the ROI > 1, then there is a (debunkable) case for having the government do it - to debunk that case you need merely to establish that private industry can deliver a better return to society (Not to it's shareholders) than the Government.
Okay, the Soviet Union. Government did it all, and ran the union into the ground. Now some people are enjoying their economic and political freedom. Meanwhile the nation with the most economic freedom, the US, is also the biggest economy. Until China and India pass the US, however they are both moving to economic freedom as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Most interesting thing here seems to be missed in the argument about whether big or small state is better, and whether stripping is a good job in an economic, ergonomic or moral sense. The tax man said:
That's the true horror of Swedish society for people from countries as various as France, England and the US. There is no official conception that anyone could dispute, or wish to avoid, "the rules".
Beneath the blood-curdling threats of retribution for breaking the law, and the moralitarian suggestion that everyone engaged in the trade is actually a sex-slave that you'd get in Anglophone countries, there's a tacit concession that (even if they like public spending) nobody really likes being taxed and would prefer just to be left alone. In France, Spain and Italy it is less tacit: nobody is assumed to be following all the rules, even through fear.
Germany is more like Sweden, though. Is it a Lutheran thing?
Not all taxes, just income tax. By forcing people who work to pay tax on what they make you're penalizing them.
many things must be done for the general population.
Like what? Building and maintaining roads? Then tax miles driven. Schools and education? Property taxes should pay for that. As it should for the fire department and police. Now while I oppose federal income taxes for individuals I would tax corporations. If you want limited liability then you pay for it. This could then be used to pay for a reduced military, NASA, and research.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
case. They have virtually NO self esteem and they use.
Citation needed!
I asked for citations so I'll provide one myself:
"The mental and physical health of female sex workers: a comparative study"
"Results: There were no differences in mental health on the GHQ-28 or in self-esteem (measured by an item on the Present State Examination) between the two groups. Neither were there any differences in their assessment of their physical health or the quality of their social networks. Sex workers were less likely to be married and had been exposed to more adult physical and sexual abuse than the comparison group. They were more likely to smoke and to drink heavily when they drank. One-third said that their general practitioner was not aware of their work. A subgroup not working with regular clients or in a massage parlour had higher GHQ-28 scores and may be an at-risk group. Narrative information about the work, particularly its intermittent nature, is presented."
"Conclusions: No evidence was found that sex work and increased adult psychiatric morbidity are inevitably associated, although there may be subgroups of workers with particular problems. The illegal and stigmatized nature of sex work are likely to make usual public health strategies more difficult to apply, considerations which should give concern from a preventive health standpoint."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
First thing to do...incorporate yourself.
Or form a limited liability company.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Taxes are a necessity for a society, but when they become a burden and retard entrepreneurial activity, then its tax structure needs to be examined.
Either your employer withholds tax and pays it for you, or the responsibility is on your head. (Well actually it's always on your head, ultimately)
It's difficult when you have to hire an accountant to figure out how much you owe in taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
if the GP is ALWAYS against taxes, how does he expect to pay for the most basic of public infrastructure? Police, the military, schools, etc.
I can't answer for the GGP but I'm not against paying taxes, just against paying income taxes. Why should I be forced at the point of a gun to pay tax on what I work to earn? It's easy to pay for some of what you list though. I not sure what public infrastructure is but if it's roads then tax miles driven. Education and schools should be paid for with property tax as should the fire department and police. A sales tax can help. Before paying for the military, first reduce it's size. Then have sales tax. The only things I believe should pay an income tax are corporations, that's because they have limited liability. If you want limited liability you pay for it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Geez, the article headline has the words "Swedish" *and "strippers" in it, and you guys are spending the whole thread talking about government bonds.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
inconveniencing any swedish woman is one of the biggest social blasphemies in my eyes. what the world is coming to !
Read radical news here
as one's wealth increases, his/her will/need to spend decreases proportionally. for, the things one strives, craves, needs increases as you become richer, for you acquire them, and in addition there are not much to be done with increasing amount of wealth.
its basic. you want a fast car, you got it. you want a million dollar apartment, you got it. you want a 10 million dollar house on the hill ? you got it. a private plane ? you got it.
the only ways one can keep spending are :
a) become extravagant and spend exorbitant amounts on overpriced goods, like $100k champagne bottles or handmade cars or houses made of glass - which is not only ridiculous, but also inflationist - there is no way inflation can stop. some designer can claim that his/her designs are 'art' and attempt to sell a dress which numerous similar examples have been created throughout history for $10 m. you may go buy the 'name' and the 'hype' on it. but actually you bought zit.
c) invest and continually increase your wealth. actually this is the promise of unlimited capitalism, but it fails. grandly. for, just as any other human being, a wealthy investor is an individual. s/he has a certain brain power to keep track of things, calculate risks, manage assets, process returns. you know, the regular wear & tear & weight of managing anything. it doesnt change with corporations - a corporation's capacity is proportional to the efficiency of the sum of all the individuals capacities' combined synergy and the methodology it uses to manage. so, a corporation is like an individual from outside - it has its limits.
therefore, after some point, just like individuals, corporations stop investing in hard, real investments to generate more wealth - its not worth the effort after a point. and they all get inclined to invest in tools that will generate effortless returns with no effort - financial tools.
so the world has come to a point that the wealth that was supposed to be invested as per capitalism are being played in financial tools and accruing more wealth without actually doing anything tangible or rendering any solid service. hedge funds & accompanying investment flop that put the world into crisis is a stellar example - money making money over SO derived tools that they dont actually come into play to generate reliable loans even.
therefore stop with the bullshit of 'stimulating the economy'. the MORE you have, the LESS you will invest & spend. and your wealth will increasingly take the route that countless trillions took, going into investment banks or financial tools without doing any solid good for economy.
what government is doing, is putting back some of that wealth into the economy, so your world will not crumble under you.
Read radical news here
You can do this job one handed he said.
Those who consume, use, and pollute.
The main thing the state should tax is productivity
By taxing productivity you penalize productivity and make it more expensive to create jobs.
As a bonus, you can also do it progressivly (with 80-90% at the top margin bracket)
And discourage job creation by taxing those who create jobs.
History shows that high top bracket margin taxes aren't bad for the economy and instead generally seems to be positive.
Citation needed.
To complement income taxes you should also have some lower property taxes.
You've got it backwards. Those who own property create the need for infrastructure and protection so they should pay for it. On the other hand by taxing income you're penalizing those who work for a living.
I have yet to see a real good reason for sales taxes except from the usual bullshitters. Sales taxes are messy, regressive and attacks the weakest link in the economy, which is that production doesn't work unless you have buyers.
Sales taxes are regressive and attack the weakest links? It's those who have high income that will pay more in sales taxes than those who are low income when only nonessential items are taxed. Other than clothing, food, medicine, and shelter; which should be sales tax free, what do the poor need? On the other hand higher income earners will be buying new stuff to fill their McMansions and will pay more in tax. That or they will invest and create more jobs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The blurb linked to the wrong sites. It's almost insulting.
Will code a sig generator for food
Privately held companies, where the owner is actually making pay decisions, actually don't tend to pay hugely inflated salaries very often. The biggest salaries come from public corporations, which have diffuse ownership (thousands of shareholders) and are in practice run by the Board of Directors and the executives themselves.
That is, it's a collectivist organizational structure: a bunch of "owners" pool their ownership and then elect someone else to run their collectively owned business. In theory the owners still exercise indirect control, because they can vote out the directors or propose shareholder resolutions. But that's also true of state-owned firms: all citizens are indirectly "owners" of a government-owned company, and can effect change by voting out the government, or in some countries and states directly passing ballot initiatives. But in practice both of these forms of control are fairly weak and ineffective, which is why state-owned and large publicly traded corporations do not much resemble owner-operated entities in practice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
For the sake of numeracy, I thought I should point out that the fibonacci sequence is the sum of an increasing exponential function and a decreasing exponential function. Its asymptotic behaviour is the same as an exponential function.
.5 when approximating the xth term of the fibonacci sequence.
f(x)=ab^x
f(x+2)=f(x+1)+f(x)
b^2=b+1
b0=(1+sqrt(5))/2
b1=(1-sqrt(5))/2
f(x)=a0b0^x+a1b1^x
f(0)=a0+a1=1
f(1)=a0b0+a1b1=1
a0(b0-b1)=1-b1
a0=(1-b1)/sqrt(5)
a1(b0-b1)=b0-1
a1=(b0-1)/sqrt(5)
The absolute value of the a1b1^x term is always less than 1/2 for positive x, so the a0b0^x term (which is an exponential function) has an error of less than
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
you have to pay SS and medicare on 100% of your income I do believe.
I'd have to check with my sister, she's a CPA and started her own accounting firm with some friends of hers. I don't know how the business was setup but she has also bought some rental properties she then transfers ownership to LLCs she also setups up for each property.
At one tyme I did want to start a business and incorporate it, but I think it would be easier to use an LLC.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The part you quoted was a direct response to your claim that many people "still" think income taxes are unconstitutional. It is my belief that 1913 is in the past. Thus, I conclude that the 16th amendment, having been ratified in the past, would be in force today. So anyone claiming income taxes were still unconstitutional would have to be claiming they were not constitutional even after ratification of the 16th amendment. So the fact that the 16th amendment explicitly authorizes income taxes would seem at least somewhat relevant, don't ya think?
The constitutionality of income taxes before 1913 is an interesting, if purely academic, question. The suggestion that income taxes are "still" unconstitutional today is not interesting, it's idiocy.
"What part of 'ammendment' are you having difficulties understanding?"
Besides the extra 'm', I'm having difficulty understanding the part where amendments mysteriously don't count. Maybe you can help me out with that, because I'm pretty sure they do count.
Actually, its constitutionality is unquestionable until it gets to SCOTUS. If they rule against the 16th, the 16th goes bye bye. So far, I haven't found a case where the 16th was challenged at the SCOTUS level.
Point I'm making is, until the 16th Amendment, income taxes were unconstitutional. Some people doubt the constitutionality of the 16th. I'm one of them, but I also know there's no way in HELL its constitutionality will ever come before the 9 Old Farts. If it gets repealled or dismissed, a ton of people are going to be wanting their money back, and the Feds just don't have it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
"Some people doubt the constitutionality of the 16th. I'm one of them..."
You think that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? How would that work? I mean, the point of an amendment is to amend. If an ammendment conflicts with a previously adopted part of the constitution, it's not a problem; it's the point. I'm not sure where you get this idea that SCOTUS might have the power to review the constitutionality of the constitution. Hell, I can't even make it sound reasonable semantically, forget legally.
Never mind the 16th, how could any amendment ever be unconstitutional, no matter what it said? I must be missing something, the idea makes no sense.
Just because something is proposed as an amendment doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Example being the 18th Amendment. This one should never have happened. It's a clear stomping on the rights of the citizenry to Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness, among other things. After all, doesn't Roe vs Wade say that the government has zero say about what a citizen can or cannot do to their body once they reach the age of consent/adulthood? Yeah, RvW was decades after the 18th, but timing doesn't trump principles.
Let's take a hypothetical amendment, the 33rd Amendment. Let's write it so that it reverses the 10th Amendment in that it takes from the citizens and gives their rights to the Fed. As such, it's directly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution is reserved for the citizens (as an individual right, example, privacy) or the States (a plural right, for example, the method of choice of a State's senators or the succession of a Representative to Congress). Constitutional? Not hardly. But possible. And likely to be struck down by the SCOTUS if it ever gets put in front of it. It's the constitutionality of the amendment or law that SCOTUS looks at, not the constitutionality of the entire document. The entire document is the base point of reference.
My problem with the 16th, btw, is that the intent of the Founders was to keep the Fed small and easily controlled, to not let it grab onto every last bit of power with both hands. They intended it to be underfunded on purpose, with the majority of funding coming directly from the States, not the individuals. They certainly didn't want the Fed poking into every area of their lives. Prior to the 16th, an appropriation could be raised proportionate to the population of a State, not from an individual citizen. How the States raised the cash was of course up to the individual State. If they wanted to throw a bake sale, pull a land grab, whatever, the Fed's eyes were blind to all but the color of the money. The other major source of revenue was fees, for instance, postage. Use a Federal service, pay for it on a case by case basis.
As written, Section 9 says:
The 16th reads:
That part, 'without regard to any census or enumeration', is the kicker. It totally sidesteps the States for cash flow and starts interacting directly with the citizenry. Previously, they'd hand the States their share of the bill and go from there. Now, neither the States nor the Citizenry have any say in how this tax works, just the Fed. It's a direct tax, not a fee charged for a service rendered like a letter delivered. And the precident of the 16th allows Congress to vote itself raises, priviledges, and rights at will, up to the point of being lynched.
I also have problems with the 17th, fwiw. The right of the method of choosing a State's senators should belong to the States, not the Feds. Thanks to the 17th, we've got some serious duds in office. The problem of course is, said duds aren't keeping quiet, they're legislating, and as Will Rogers once said, "Nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe when the Legislature is in session."
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Got it. You don't understand the difference between amendments and laws. Laws must be consistent with the constitution, if they disagree, the constitution wins. Amendments change the constitution. If they disagree with the constitution as it previously existed, the amendment wins. That's what amendments are for. That's why amendments are harder to ratify than laws are to pass.
Your example makes it clear: if the 33rd amendment reversed the 10th, the 10th would be reversed. SCOTUS would have nothing to say about it. Much like (most obviously) the 21st reversed the 18th. It can happen, does happen, has happened.
I don't know where you get your theory of amendments not being valid if they violate your idea what's good. The actual process for amendment is specified in Article 5. If that process is followed, the amendment counts. Even if you don't like it. For pete's sake, article 5 even makes a specific special rule for exactly the clause you're talking about:
"...no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article."
which sure does seem to imply you could affect that fourth clause after 1808, doesn't it? I mean they could have said you can't amend it ever, but they didn't. 1813 is after 1808, in case that's the part you're having trouble with.
"I also have problems with the 17th, fwiw."
Sorry to hear that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. My copy of Article 5 seems to be missing the clause that says "Unless jamstar7 has a problem with it." I don't recall seeing that on the original last time I visited the Smithsonian either.
Amendments are real. They amend the Constitution. If you don't believe this, there's not much point arguing. You are incorrect.
And I never said they weren't valid, just some are unconstitutional. For instance, (yes, again) the 16th legislating a direct income tax to be an indirect tax so it can be collected without having to consult the states. There was a reason it was written the way it was written. The Founders didn't trust Congress a bit.
The intention of Congress was, 1 house of Representatives directly elected by the people, 1 house of Senators appointed by their States in whatever manner that State felt was good and proper. It was not intended as a total democracy, it's supposed to be a republic. Considerable difference. It was set up that way for checks and balances. By getting rid of the 'popularity contest' aspect of the Senate, they were hoping to find some statesmen for a change. The 17th knocked the props out of one of the checks and turned both houses into a popularity contest. The Founders talked a good bit about the 'tyranny of the majority' in The Federalist Papers, btw. The intent was to protect the nation from Congress, with the President & SCOTUS as checks on it. Well, it worked for a while...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
"And I never said they weren't valid, just some are unconstitutional."
By 'valid' I meant, 'enforceable parts of the constitution'. Amendments modify the constitution such that it says what they say. They might violate the will of the founders, but they cannot be unconstitutional. They are the Constitution. The founders intended the Constitution to be modifiable. They enacted specific provisions for doing so. Amendments generally modify the Constitution so it says something different than what the founders wanted. That doesn't mean SCOTUS (or anyone) can reject them. Contradicting the will of the founders is not a flaw in an amendment, it is a feature; it is the point. It is what the founders themselves expected and provided for in article 5.
According to my dictionary, the only thing 'republic' means that 'democracy' doesn't is that our head of state is not a monarch. Your theory that having state legislatures appoint senators would eliminate the politics of the process I find particularly amusing. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether
Constitutional Amendments can possibly be unconstitutional. Because Constitutional Amendments (the name is a clue!) amend the Constitution. They are parts of the Constitution that change what it says. I don't see what is complicated here.
OK, hypothetically, let's amend the Constitution to confer citizenship and voting rights ONLY to white male Protestant land owners aged 65 or greater who have a 4 year or more military history and at least 10 million in liquid assets. Is this a 'good law'? I don't think so. Is it 'enforceable'? Maybe...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
"They had a helluva time enforcing Prohibition."
Irrelevant. The 21st amendment is operative despite directly contradicting the earlier language. It is not, and cannot be, unconstitutional. The 16th amendment is operative despite directly contradicting the earlier language. It is not, and cannot be, unconstitutional. The fact that you like some amendments better than others has no legal bearing. Properly ratified amendments are operative whether they are good ideas or not, and regardless of who thinks so. Your claim that a particular amendment is 'unconstitutional' is plainly ridiculous. It is not possible for an amendment to be unconstitutional.