Slashdot Mirror


UK Pursues Tax Evaders Using Stolen Bank Details

Andrew Smith writes "The UK taxman (HM Revenue & Customs) is reportedly using a stolen list of bank details to pursue wealthy individuals with off-shore accounts. The list was stolen by an employee of HSBC, and gave details of the bank's customers with money in Swiss accounts. The bank employee fled to France, and the authorities there passed the details on to the UK tax collection agency."

315 comments

  1. Remember kids: When you steal something it's wrong by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the government somehow steals something, it's alright!

  2. Spies steal data all the time by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government spies steal data all the time - it is what they do. The author of this article must be very young...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Spies steal data all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I guess if you are some crotchety old half-brain and shady practices have been the norm for a while, if a young whippersnapper comes along and suggests that what you're doing isn't very ethical, the appropriate response to their challenge is simply "LOL UR JUST YOUNG........"

    2. Re:Spies steal data all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the politicians/upper class/tax evaders all have their money going through Jersey which the Queen of England owns.

      check out Jersey's gross revenue, remember that they have minimal exports!

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jersey

  3. Two Wrongs. . . by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    often do not make right, as the old saying points out. It's an interesting legal question, though: Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information? In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule," a legal doctrine often mentioned in connection with a concept of some evidenced being obtained as the "fruit of a poisonous tree." I wonder if the UK has any similar sorts of protections - note that I'm not implying that such protections in the US legal system would necessarily protect anyone if this story had occurred in the US instead of the UK. Governments are clearly zealous about protecting the tax revenue they take from their citizens.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    1. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By keeping you mean not paying your fair share for the very society that you exploit for your own serf serving gains. Unless you are posting from a place with no government like Somalia, you are nothing but a spoiled four year old in a supposed adults body. why don't you go back to your room while the adults try to fix the mess your incompetence and greed have caused.

    2. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right. Taxes are evil and useless. Everyone knows that the infrastructure which enables modern civilization, like roads and plumbing, are paid for with leprechaun gold.

      And the military to defend that civilization is created with pixie dust.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    3. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by waferhead · · Score: 1

      I'll take a shot at it... at least based on how the US legal and tax system work. (sort of inherited from the British, at least loosely)

      There would likely be protections from criminal prosecution (inadmissible evidence or such) at least until they found enough evidence OTHER than the list itself.

      BUT---The tax man doesn't really care much to prosecute you.
      He wants his money. ...You give him the money, or he takes it forcibly.

      You aren't likely to make much if convicted/in prison, so it's sort of a twisted win-win...

      If you spent/lost it all and cannot pay him, then you may have a problem.

    4. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by SupremoMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This hard earned money is not your to begin with. It's not even real! It only has value because of the government. How much would one dollar be worth if the government didn't exist? If there was no one watching the boarder, and anyone can come from any shitty country and steal it from you. If there was no police protection your beautiful house would only be worth as much as the window a gang of criminals smashed to get inside, and loot it; proceeding thereafter you kill you and rape your family. Or how much would your stack of bills be worth if no one regulated inflation, and overnight it wouldn't buy you a loaf of bread? (See Zimbabwe)

      Not everything government does is great, or even good. But they do enough good to make it worth it. That's why all first world countries with high standards of living have large governments that collect taxes, and not Somalian-style fiefdoms. So no they are not trying to keep their hard earned money, they are stealing from everyone else.

    5. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And despite losing a larger percentage of your income, you're still richer than everyone else. Yawn. Call me when the top marginal tax rate again hits 90% as it did in the 1930s. Maybe then I'll worry about your plight.

    6. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by mpoulton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule,"

      The exclusionary rule does not apply to this type of instance. This information would be admissible in the US. The exclusionary rule only bars the admission of evidence which was obtained illegally BY THE GOVERNMENT or someone working on the government's behalf. When evidence is obtained due to a third party's criminal act (which was not induced by the government), it is not barred. For example, if I undertook my own independent investigation of a murder case and committed criminal acts to obtain evidence, then turned that over to the state, it would not be barred by the exclusionary rule unless it could be shown that I was cooperating with or induced by the state to violate the defendant's rights. IANAL, but I am a 3rd year law student.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, we lived in a fucked up world where the harder you work and the more successful you are, the more you're punished and you lose an ever increasing percentage of your income.

      Are you referring to the Working Class who can't afford Creative Accountants, lawyers, political lobbyists, and secret "off-shore" bank accounts?

    8. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were able to earn their hard earned money because they were lucky enough to grow up in a society that had already provided clean water, abundant food, an effective police force, decent health services, utilities, and other things that you, I, and probably most people on /. take for granted because they've always been there for us, but they simply don't exist in many parts of the world. Those things cost money, and by evading taxes in this manner, one is shortchanging his own society. It's true that in the UK, US, and many western nations that the government has in many cases has expanded needlessly and has increased the price tag of living there, but many of them are some form of democracy and can be changed, especially, although unfortunately, if one has deep pockets. Simply trying to pay nothing while continuing to reap the benefits of what everyone else has little choice but to pay for is not only selfish, but immoral.

    9. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually, if you understood the theory behind money and had some knowledge of economic history, you'd know that governments have zero control over money. There have been plenty of instances where the citizens of a country refused to use the governments official currency and either used the currency of another country or used things such as cigarettes instead. Money only has the value that people decide it has.

      But they do enough good to make it worth it.

      That's extremely debatable, especially since pretty much every government these days are on the fast track to being an Orwellian style police state. I don't think I've read a single news article about a country gaining more freedoms (well, outside of Cuba allowing cell phones now), yet there's countless ones from every "free" country about people losing their rights.

      That's why all first world countries with high standards of living have large governments that collect taxes

      They may currently, but they didn't always. For a long time the US had both the highest standard of living AND the lowest taxes and smallest government. It's actually been proven several times throughout history that higher taxes and bigger government almost always leads to lower quality of life (there have been the rare exceptions, such as Sweden, but even Sweden is changing now and shrinking the government and lowering taxes).

      So no they are not trying to keep their hard earned money, they are stealing from everyone else.

      *sigh* You're one of those people who don't understand property rights. You do NOT have the right to someone else's money. It doesn't matter if a politician passes a law saying it's ok for person X to steal a certain amount from person Y because person Y makes more money - it's still person Y's money and no one else has the right to it.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    10. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The beavers and dears in the forest will tell you that you don't have a right to your own money either.

    11. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You get to keep YOUR hard earned money. What these guys are doing is stealing from the government. After all it's not your hard earned money if you're not paying tax, it's tax fraud. But lets just run with your view of the world shall we?

      If you want that dangerous pothole down the road fixed, you can pay for it, and on that note no we will not be building a second bridge just because the traffic is bad because you guys haven't paid for it yet.
      Public schools? Yeah we got those, $10000 per year please.
      What do you mean garbage collection? You haven't paid us the $10 monthly fee to do it.
      Oh what you just got unfairly dismissed from your work because your boss didn't like that you wouldn't sleep with him? Tough, take it to the courts, we've shut down our fair work tribunal. Turns out they wanted to get paid too.
      By the way did you hear an oil company spilt 5million barrels of oil into the gulf? No we're not going to prosecute them, not unless you're willing to pay for the lawyers.

      I'd go on but you get the picture. Basically your utopia isn't.

    12. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Joebert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The list in this case might be probable cause to court order a recent list from the bank itself to verify the questionable lists authenticity. Assuming the person in question was in a position to obtain such a list, the only question here is whether the list is authentic and whether it was modified, both of which can easily be answered definitively with a current list from the bank.

      Technically, I think the person who stole the list could argue that it's not actually a real list, that they forged it in an attempt to dupe nefarious buyers. This would force the prosecution to court order an authentic copy of the list to verify/debunk the defendants story. The bank would be forced to either comply with a non-altered list, or face criminal charges for evidence tampering. Once the list makes it to trial, I believe it becomes public knowledge and law enforcement is free to use the information in any way they please.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I've needed one a couple of times. That just seems like how it would end up working out to me.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    13. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the UK income tax, social security, etc are all taken at source (so is most of EU). In order for money to enter a tax evasion channel it has to come from outside normal payroll. If it is outside normal payroll (let's say investment) there is plenty of ways to tax-avoid which is not a crime. You can register a company which "owns" all of your income sources which are outside payroll (shares, etc) and tax deduce to the point where you pay very little or nothing.

      In order for money to be tax evaded in the EU (not tax avoided) it has to be both outside payroll and too "dirty" to allow one to put it into a company or another accounting vehicle. That does not sound like "hard earned" money to me. In fact tracing the source of the money may prove a very interesting exsercise. That happened in the German case. Quite a few VP and board level people found on the Lichtenstein list ended up with fraud and corruption proceedings against them.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    14. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the GP is anything like most of the people who spout this philosophy, then chances are, he's not actually in a high tax bracket. For some reason, the bulk of defenders of the upper class rich (in the US at least) are not particularly well to do working class. For some reason, they want to defend their money from taxes when, inevitably their genius leads them to join the ranks of the rich.

    15. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do NOT have the right to someone else's money.

      And yet you have no problem using infrastructure and all manner of stuff that you didn't pay for. I have never seen anyone say the above, and actually practice what they preach.

    16. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 1

      You wrote "You're right. Taxes are evil and useless. Everyone knows that the infrastructure which enables modern civilization, like roads and plumbing, are paid for with leprechaun gold.

      And the military to defend that civilization is created with pixie dust."

          And civilization is doomed if the news ever gets out that barbecued leprechaun tastes great when sprinkled generously with pixie dust...

         

    17. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do not that the police are reactive, not proactive don't you? That it has been determined (in the US anyway) that the police have no obligation to protect an individual? That the vast majority of burglaries go uninvestigated? That modern police forces have existed only since the middle of last millenia, and that the concept of private property extends far before that? You realise that the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the government printing new notes, that fiat currencies depending on the stability of government are relatively new, and have been preceded by millenia of stable currency based on natural scarcity?

      Some government services are necessary; taxes to support them are necessary. And a fraction of the taxes that are collected actually go towards paying for those necessities.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, it's about justice. Everyone has the right to the money they earn, regardless of if they earn $1 a year or $1 billion a year. Ethics - you should look it up.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    19. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by redhog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US and UK are common law countries, and I think that this is something that might differ between common law and civil law (so France might be up to bad stuff here).

      In Sweden (a civil law country), we have freedom of evidence - anything can be presented in court as evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. If the police somehow obtains evidence illegaly (e.g. through burglary), that will be prosecuted separately. Since this second case does not affect the original court case, nor is affected by it, the police man / upper chain of command ordering the illegal act will get punished regardless of if the original case is thrown out or the defendant found guilty.

      --
      --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
    20. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right it doesn't take skill to pick up trash and it doesn't take skill to work in a sewage plant. Except those are both important for good sanitation and good sanitation says more lives than doctors or modern medicine. There are lots of jobs that don't take "skill" but some how I don't think your going to get off your fat ass and do it for yourself. Nope, I didn't think so. Greedy self righteous sacks of shit like you are what's wrong with the world.

    21. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Define "right".

      Define "earn".

    22. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Totenglocke · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, I pay taxes to maintain roads, public schools, etc. The issue is the things of "Oh, Bill Gates makes more money, so we'll take some of his and give it to AC so that AC can buy the things he wants without working to earn the money for them" programs / taxes.

      I have never seen anyone say the above, and actually practice what they preach.

      That's because you mix two separate issues (necessary taxes / programs vs unnecessary welfare state taxes / programs to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't) to create a tautology where if someone exists, they're "using something they didn't pay for".

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    23. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information?

      I would say yes. It happened in Belgium a few years back as well with banks in Luxembourg. The article also talks about the case in Germany where authorities bought the list.

      Also these will not be directly used for a court case, but for tax investigations. There will be a lwhole lot of different rules that apply there.

      In Belgium when it was known that the list was available, people had the chance to 'come clear' and confess without any serious trouble (except they had to pay their taxes).

      As it has happend at least twice (Germany and Belgium) I also do not see what the news worthyness is. Oh, right. This is /.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    24. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, if you understood the theory behind money and had some knowledge of economic history, you'd know that governments have zero control over money.

      You obviously never heard of China.

    25. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "define".

    26. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Call me when the top marginal tax rate again hits 90%

      Phone call for you!

      The current US system does not have an upper (or even lower) bound
      on marginal tax rate. That's one of the consequences of the AMT.

      The two tax systems, regular and AMT, treat different items as income so
      you can have a [regular] taxable income of $0 but have to pay any amount
      of tax.

      This is actually /. relevant as one thing that will get you there is to exercise
      incentive stock options and hold the resulting stock through the end of the
      tax year.

    27. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Oh, Bill Gates makes more money, so we'll take some of his and give it to AC so that AC can buy the things he wants without working to earn the money for them"

      That's an interesting bias you have. You do realize that Bill Gates doesn't actually earn his money either? He built a company, and it's the people in that company who earn his money for him today. He just owns shares. So in a specific sense, he's actually doing what you're accusing the AC of doing.

      Maybe you'd find it easier to accept that you have to pay taxes if you think of them as shares that the government owns in your labour.

    28. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, if you had any knowledge of how an economy functions, you'd understand that any money you earn is because around you is a stable society with stable laws and stable government. In other words, the money you earn is at least partially due to other people working to provide you with the environment in which you can earn that money. Which in turn means that they are entitled to a share of your money, because without them, that money could not be earned in the first place.

      It's amazing how people think that their success is completely independent of their surroundings, yet never move to Somalia or Chechnia.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    29. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, I see. Necessary taxes and programs are those that benefit you directly. Unnecessary welfare taxes and programs are those that you do not benefit from. Nice.

      I hope you die from some really rare and painful disease after your medical coverage is terminated because it hit its lifetime maximum.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    30. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by poptones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, let's take away the roads, the electric utility subsidies, the OIL THAT RUNS YOUR CAR and is subsidized by WAR, the police that keep the neighbors from stealing your shit when you leave the house, and see how many of those dollars you earn...

      Moron.

    31. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      In some non American countries, "working class" means "unskilled working class".

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    32. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government intervention in transportation has been nothing but a subsidy to automobile manufacturers from day 1.

      Without road taxes:
      1.Airships/Trains would be more prevalent
      2.People wouldn't be constantly dying in car crashes.
      3.Corrupt local governments couldn't finance their graft using speeding tickets.
      4.Urbanization would have progressed at a more progressive rate.
      5.We wouldn't need 1/5 as many cops or EMTs
      6.The Constitution would be slightly less in shambles.(many of the violations to the 4th and 5th ammendment are done in the name of fighting drunk drivers)
      7.We would have significantly fewer felons.(DUIs)
      8.Truck drivers would have to pay road use fees appropriate to their disproportionate share of responsibility for road deterioration.
      9.DOT employees wouldn't get paid ridiculous money to stand around and do nothing.

      I can't even begin to list all the ways that the government "services" you provide as crowning achievements of government market intervention are rotten to the core.

      Without failure: wherever there is government market intervention: it creates regressive perversions of incentives and self-perpetuating artificial bureaucratic monopolies. This always has the impact of hindering progress and economic growth.

      The proper role of government is to build infrastructure. Not maintain/run it. Without oppressive government agencies like the FCC: the radio spectrum would be a public asset being efficiently utilized through technological advances in spread spectrum modulation schemes.

    33. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your snotty dismissal ignores the fact that government is not the only means for building roads or plumbing. It does not follow that because some product or service is provided through the threat of violence today, that it can't be done otherwise.

      -jcr

      You're absolutely right!

      The leprechauns and pixies can make the roads and provide the services.

    34. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ebonum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the person who stole the data was paid by the government. That makes him an agent of a foreign government in Switzerland. He was paid by the government ( French government ) for his work.

      If he was in the US, stealing data from Bank of American for France and being paid millions of dollars for the theft, he would be an agent of the French government. As such, he could be arrested in the US for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government.

    35. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This is the UK we're talking about, so we're also taking about useless socialism programs.

      It's up to the citizens of a given state to decide whether the "socialist" programs in that state are useless or not. And, last I checked, UK was still a democracy, so that's precisely what they do.

    36. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your snotty dismissal ignores the fact that government is not the only means for building roads or plumbing.

      Which is why those government-less places around the world - like Somalia - are renowned for their vast networks of well-maintained roads and plumbing. I hear ya!

    37. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      *sigh* You're one of those people who don't understand property rights.

      No, he's just one of those people who don't understand them your way. Imagine that, there are many takes on what property even is! Like, some people think it's just as imaginary as copyright, and the very concept of "property right" only exists insofar as there is some entity to enforce it universally - we happen to call it a "state".

    38. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Already got said horrible disease. I was born with it and there's no cure. However, unlike you, I understand that just because my life sucks it doesn't give me the right to steal money from other people to get treatment.

      You know, time and again I'm surprised at how most more fanatical libertarians would be worse off than they are today if a party representing their platform ever came to power. Students with no job, and a loan they'll be paying off for years to come? Check. People who are seriously ill themselves, or have seriously ill relatives? Check.

      It's not even funny. It's just sad.

    39. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      governments have zero control over money

      If they can print it, they, in-fact, have practically unlimited control over the currency. No magic will prevent the printing of extra currency from causing inflation. And if they stop printing more, you get deflation.

      There have been plenty of instances where the citizens of a country refused to use the governments official currency

      Indeed. And it's pretty much always been because that the government was abusing their (above) control over that currency. And what do they use instead? Some OTHER GOVERNMENT'S currency!

      I don't think I've read a single news article about a country gaining more freedoms

      That's either selective amnesia or observation bias. Laws are changing all the time. There's always someone gaining more freedom, somewhere. As a big one, Gay rights in the US marches on, in the past few days the US military has been forced by court order to re-instate an open lesbian.

      And let's not forget that everyone in the history of the world that has lived long enough to become an old man has bitched and moaned about how the world is getting worse. You just call it "less freedom" and pretend that makes your complaints more legit than my old man complaining about how cars are built... Rose colored goggles in full-force.

      For a long time the US had both the highest standard of living AND the lowest taxes and smallest government.

      Well, if you're talking about the Regan/Bush years, the government was BIGGER, not smaller, and the economic policy undeniably drove the economy into a downward spiral, causing the highest levels of unemployment in history, which even the current recession hasn't entirely matched in all aspects. Standard of living certainly declined.

      However, I wouldn't really call that "a long time". Other than that, the most recent period of low taxes I can see is the 1910s and before.

      I would also like to point out that, as far back as Thomas Jefferson, and up through today, every US politician that has campaigned on "smaller government" has turned themselves into a liar almost immediately upon taking power, and grown the government. Decreases in government size have always been accidents, with unfortunate consequences.

      It's actually been proven several times throughout history that higher taxes and bigger government almost always leads to lower quality of life

      You may be able to selectively cite some cases where tax increases coincide with lower quality of life, but overwhelmingly, those countries with the highest tax rate do indeed have the highest quality of living.

      It doesn't matter if a politician passes a law saying it's ok for person X to steal a certain amount from person Y because person Y makes more money - it's still person Y's money and no one else has the right to it.

      If not for the government, person Y would be making no money at all. Otherwise, they'd just move to some failed country, start their own police force, and continue to make obscene amounts of money without being taxed... Guess what? It's the governments that create those stable economic markets person Y is (effectively) exploiting to generate their wealth.

      Saying YOUR government is violating your right by taxing "your" money, is a bit like saying the casino is robbing you by not allowing you to break into the slot machine... Those trying to get out of paying taxes are merely trying to be on the most profitable end of the prisoner's dilemma...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    40. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by rmstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, if you had an IQ over 5, you'd notice that the necessary programs are ones that are best provided by government (such as roads, because it's too much of a hassle to have priviately owned roads) and ones that everyone equally has access to. Unnecessary ones are ones that serve no purpose but to take money from person A's wallet and put it in person B's wallet. However, you're a greedy bastard who thinks that you should be able to steal all you want from people just because they worked harder and have more money than you.

      The problem with your view is the definition of "necessary". Is it necessary to keep people in hardship from drowning in their tragedy? Same thing for programs that are best provided by government. Healthcare seems to be one, for example, and a good argument can be made for education to be in the same category. One can even make an argument that giving enough money to poor people to guarantee a minimum of quality of life is a great way of mitigating public health and crime problems.

      Your tone of discussion ("if you had an IQ over 5...", "you're a greedy bastard...") does not have the effect you may have intended.

      However, unlike you, I understand that just because my life sucks it doesn't give me the right to steal money from other people to get treatment.

      Most people think paying taxes so the state can help people like you is a great idea, and do not consider it theft. Who is going to help you when the shit hits the fan if it is not us, your fellow humans?

    41. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This hard earned money is not your to begin with.

      So I "hard earned" for somebody else? Perhaps you ought to look up the meaning of the word "incentive".

      It's not even real! It only has value because of the government.

      Money has value only because the society not government chooses to recognize the value of that money. As long as that situation holds, money has real value.

      Not everything government does is great, or even good. But they do enough good to make it worth it. That's why all first world countries with high standards of living have large governments that collect taxes, and not Somalian-style fiefdoms. So no they are not trying to keep their hard earned money, they are stealing from everyone else.

      Nonsense. Somalian-style fiefdoms are government too. Look I recognize that governments are an integral part of the modern infrastructure of laws, physical infrastructure, education, etc that makes up a modern society. But they aren't the sole part. And I'm also aware that governments can waste society's resources when they take too much and spend it on self-serving and/or useless purposes. Treating it as "government does enough good" to rationalize this sort of thievery is in itself destructive to society. There's several good reasons to consider the money and the resources a person buys with that money as things owned by that person. First, it's accurate. These goods would not exist without the direct actions of the person. Second, it's fair. Nobody else directly worked to earn those wages and whatnot, so why should they have a claim of ownership to them? It doesn't mean you can't tax them to pay for legitimate infrastructure, we're merely speaking of ownership.

      Third, ownership implies first claim to use of the good or resource. If government owns my income, my stuff, and me, then they have claim over me to what can be done with those things and myself. That's the sort of foolishness that killed hundreds of millions of people last century. One does not trust governments with that sort of power because we have a long, long history of grotesque abuse of that power when it was present. I suppose you could claim that any government has that power de facto, but that claim would be in error since the democratic First World governments do not have first claim to ownership of people or their assets.

    42. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1
      "It does not follow that because some product or service is provided through the threat of violence today, that it can't be done otherwise."

      Really? Ok, lets say you build a toll road. No tax involvement at all. Simple deal: You provide the capitol, and charge people to use it. Except... how do you make sure people pay? How do you stop them just driving through, or even ramming down the barriers or using an off-roader to go around them? You need the police, or a private security force. Either way it is only the threat of violence that makes your business possible.

      Plumbing, perhaps? Again, without resorting to violence, there is no way to stop people from tapping into the line without paying. Or they could just pay for a month, empty a bag of cement into the hole where the valve is so their supply can't be cut, and then stop paying after that.

      Even your non-governmental approach depends upon the threat of violence to function.

    43. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by malkavian · · Score: 1

      That seems far more fair than the cloak and dagger technicalities employed by the UK (where I live) and the US..

    44. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not defending the GP post's black-and-white position, but your position is equally untenable. By your argument, it is perfectly OK for the government to take as much tax revenue as it likes, and I think a lot of us would have a problem with that, too.

      Taxation is, essentially, legalised theft, just as most of our governments are, essentially, legalised mob rule. History suggests that allowing some degree of both is better than the alternative, which is the Somalia situation you mentioned. But we should never forget that both a government that awards itself power over individual citizens and the concept of taxation are necessary evils. They are not good things, and they are to be tolerated only to the extent that we don't have any better ideas yet.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    45. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by indeterminator · · Score: 1

      And you're obviously from Europe. In the US, we don't have your 60%+ tax rates and we actually *gasp!* pay for the things that benefit us ourselves. Want to sue your company? Why yes, you do have to pay the lawyer because you're the one benefiting from the lawsuit (if it goes your way). Want someone to pick up the trash instead of taking it to the dump yourself? Why yes, you DO have to pay for it!

      Actually, where I live (in Europe), if I go sue a company, I'll have to pay my own expenses. I also have to pay for municipal services (like trash), though I'm not sure if they're being subsidised with tax money.

      And I don't know anyone with 60%+ tax rate either.

    46. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ltlasset · · Score: 1

      Completely agree. I am also curious as to how personal bank account holding in the UK are coming under scrutiny? The way I understand tax law of various countries (UK included), is that every country OTHER than the US, does NOT tax it's citizens based on foreign income. Hence any income derived from foreign assets in their accounts in the UK are not subject to UK taxation. Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements? I just don't understand why this is notable news. So what if they have a few million in their account, as long as it came from foreign income or foreign assets, it is not subject to taxation.

    47. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Read the thing you should read before posting. The list was stolen in Switzerland. The Swiss want to arrest him. But he's in France and it's not possible to extradite him.

    48. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by bongomanaic · · Score: 1

      English law is at the other end of the exclusionary-inclusionary scale from the US, with Scotland somewhere in the middle. In general English courts will admit improperly obtained evidence so long as it is relevant and doesn't impact too greatly on the fairness of the proceedings.

    49. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously a gov't needs taxes to function.

      The question is this: what is the proper function of a government and how much should it be allowed to spend on that function?

      An income tax allows a government to grow beyond its proper function and thus to increase in size all the time.

      Suffices it to say that current US federal gov't budget has increased by a factor of more than 2 since the year 2000. So the amount of gov't function has increased, or more correctly stated: US gov't is spending more than twice as much money today (4T USD) as it was spending 10 years ago (1.7T USD).

      How is that good for anybody in the country, except for those closely related to the gov't structures that the gov't system is spending twice as much money now, as it was spending 10 years ago, while the actual economy is so much worse, which the trade deficit shows (about -26B USD/month in 2000, to about -45B USD/month in 2010 and BTW, it did reach -70B USD/month a number of times in between.)

      Before the year 1913 US federal gov't was collecting tariffs and sales taxes, half of which came from alcohol, by the way. The Income taxes implemented in 1913 really only hit the top income brackets, and the taxes were in the order of 1-1.5%. The rest of the population wasn't paying income taxes, and the Federal gov't was fairly small, really not very significant. All of the infrastructure, be it roads, bridges, police, fire etc. were really a local issue, as it was supposed to be by the Constitution of the US.

      Note that the USA is a unique country (I was born in the USSR, which also was a 'unique' sort of a country, but I prefer the US uniqueness, the way it was implemented from the beginning, not the way it is now), it is unique in that it has a Constitution that LIMITS gov't powers instead of limiting personal Freedoms.

      Do not forget that the liberties, the freedoms, the rights of people are not supposed to be stated specifically in the Constitution of the USA. In fact by design the people of US had all the Freedoms and the Constitution limited the Congress in how it could limit/take Freedoms away from the people. Indeed the very idea of 'amendments' is an unfortunate one, because many people do not understand that amendments are not listing their Freedoms in the USA Constitution. There should not have been any amendments at all, they are confusing the issue for many, people already have the Freedoms and amendments give some a belief that those are the only Freedoms they have (the ones listed.)

      The Constitution founders realized that gov't needs money to function, so they allowed the Congress to implement taxes, but unfortunately they did not limit the types of taxes that could be implemented. The income taxes are clearly a violation of the spirit of the rest of the Constitution, as they require any person to disclose their private information: what they do, how they live, etc. to the gov't and so it became after 1913 that the gov't decided it really OWNS the people's lives, their income and they GIFT to the people whatever part of income it desires.

      So that's a problem, because it simultaneously destroys Freedoms that people have and it allows gov't to grow as much as it desires, and it desires to grow.

      Obviously the sales taxes are the way to go because it does a number of great things:
      1. Allows people to keep the Freedoms they must have.
      2. Allows people to keep their income and invest it in the manner they so desire, and that's the best way to move economy by letting people save and savings are the key to have economy moving. Not debt but savings, because savings are necessary to start new businesses.
      3. Limits the size of sales taxes because if the taxes are too high, people spend less and this is an automatic feedback system, that controls the size of the gov't.
      4. Limits the functions of the gov't to those, that people are clearly allowing it to have by paying for them.
      5. Prevents the gov't from destroying the economy by distorting the market forces and by creati

    50. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's up to the citizens of a given state to decide whether the "socialist" programs in that state are useless or not.

      That would be a more compelling argument if the citizens of the state were fully informed about the consequences of their actions, and collectively making rational choices accordingly.

      Unfortunately, this will never happen, because people can't simultaneously be legal experts, economic experts, public health experts, criminologists, etc. If they could, we wouldn't need to appoint so many representatives who could explore these issues full time on our behalf.

      To see how little the average person really understands about how economics in particular works, just take a look at any popular on-line discussion forum in the run up to a national budget day. You'll find loads of people whose attitude is "me, me, me". There will be quite a few whose attitude is "well, the rich can afford it, we should just tax them as much as we need to prop up any government spending we like". There will also be a couple of token rich guys, probably business owners, who point out that under a punitive tax regime people like them will either move away or stop doing the socially useful things that made them rich, which means raising taxes on the rich and on business too high ultimately reduces both tax income and social benefit. Of course, the rich guys either get ignored or get attacked for being selfish, probably by people who would rapidly become unemployed and unemployable under the tax system they advocate when the business owners were no longer creating jobs for them.

      Another point is that most of our governments are not democracies in the original meaning. Here in the UK, the previous administration came to power on a political technicality without ever facing a public vote. The administration they succeeded had the explicit support of only 1/5 or so of the electorate, yet they had the legal power to act in ways the other 4/5 of us did not support. (See "War, Iraq" for an obvious example.)

      Finally, we appoint general representatives, and those representatives in turn make choices on our behalf. Even if we generally like our local representative, we may not agree with or support every choice they make, but typically we do not vote for a different representative in each area of specialisation under our current system. The idea is presumably that you appoint a representative whose principles you support, and who would therefore be likely to make choices you would mostly agree with in any given situation, but even then it is unlikely that you would find someone whose views exactly matched your own.

      In other words, "the citizens decide" is a very weak argument, and so it must always be. Our current political systems may be the best we've come up with so far, but that certainly does not imply that they are beyond criticism or always act in ways that those they supposedly represent would support. That is why it is so important to include strong safeguards, such as constitutional protection for basic rights, so the government of the day cannot trample on individuals on a whim just because of the way the political wind is blowing this week. Unfortunately, we have yet to devise similarly robust safeguards for government spending, not least because there is much less agreement among the general population about how much governments should be entitled to spend.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    51. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you understood the theory behind money and had some knowledge of economic history,

      Actually you should read some yourself so that you wouldn't say moronic shit like this:

      you'd know that governments have zero control over money.

      I recommend in particular that you look up at how governments peg currencies (or float...)

      There have been plenty of instances where the citizens of a country refused to use the governments official currency and either used the currency of another country or used things such as cigarettes instead.

      I also recommend that you look up instances in which governments have outlawed using anything else than the official currency.

      Money only has the value that people decide it has.

      Except when governments peg currencies and outlaw using anything else than the official currency.

      Do you still claim that governments have zero control over money? And that the parent poster instead of you has some reading to do?

    52. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taxation is, essentially, legalised theft, just as most of our governments are, essentially, legalised mob rule.

      Creating a false definition doesn't make a point. If I say that air is essentially dry water, that doesn't mean it's going to quench your thirst.

      If the government send me a bill which covers all the goods and services I receive from the government - roads, education, keeping of law & order, defence etc. ANd I choose to pay it, then clearly there is no theft. Just a bill which has been paid.

      If you choose not to pay it, and the debt is forcibly extracted from you, then the word for that is distraint, not theft.

    53. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I hope you die from some really rare and painful disease after your medical coverage is terminated because it hit its lifetime maximum.

      You do realise that in places with socialised medical care, you are typically still not covered for treatment of rarer/more expensive conditions, right? Here in the UK, we have the infamous "postcode lottery" for NHS treatment, where even in some parts of the same country, the same nationalised healthcare system, funded from the same central taxation pot, will not provide treatments that you could get if you lived in a different part of the country. And of course, if you do have something rare and unfortunate, you have far less of your own money left to pay for specialist private treatment if the Powers That Be have taken a huge chunk of it in taxation to pay for the treatments they deem socially worthy on the NHS. This is the great misconception of public service provision: just because the government operates a service, this does not magically mean that money grows on trees and the service will provide all things to all citizens.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    54. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Government intervention in transportation has been nothing but a subsidy to automobile manufacturers from day 1.

      Bizarre. Government intervention in transportation started long before the automobile was invented. I doubt the Romans built their road network thinking about how useful it would be to GM.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    55. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You're right, twisting words doesn't change the underlying point. Your argument, for example, is fundamentally flawed because you assume the "bill" from government is justified. As it happens, I do not support a lot of government spending that has been done in my country until recently, and I do support the strong moves by the new administration to dramatically reduce that spending. Sending me a bill for the spending before, which I did not ask for and which I do not believe was ever beneficial (neither to me personally nor to society more generally), is like a hotel sending me a bill for a stay I never booked. I am under no obligation to pay the hotel; why do you think I should have an obligation to pay the government?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    56. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It's not about whether it can be provided - it's about whether it will be.

      Fear the Libertarians! If they get their way, the government will leave you alone! Oh, the Horror!

      No matter what. So if you've been mugged or your house is on fire, the Libertarian Government will do nothing about it because your freedom is too important to be messed with.

    57. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are a great deal fewer successful people in those countries for exactly that reason. Move there and see how easily all (not just a fraction) of your hard-earned money gets taken from you.

    58. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by digitig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the GP is anything like most of the people who spout this philosophy, then chances are, he's not actually in a high tax bracket. For some reason, the bulk of defenders of the upper class rich (in the US at least) are not particularly well to do working class. For some reason, they want to defend their money from taxes when, inevitably their genius leads them to join the ranks of the rich.

      I suspect it's something to do with hope and aspiration. They like to think that the path to the wealthy and glamorous life they see on TV is open to them and unobstructed, even though for most of them personality and/or circumstances and/or luck mean that it isn't really.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    59. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      Australian residents (residents for tax purposes) pay tax on their Australian-source and foreign income. There are credits provided for tax paid in foreign jurisdictions to avoid double taxation. I guessed that was the norm but really don't know. Just a counter-point to your "every country other than the US" claim.

    60. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Suffices it to say that current US federal gov't budget has increased by a factor of more than 2 since the year 2000. So the amount of gov't function has increased, or more correctly stated: US gov't is spending more than twice as much money today (4T USD) as it was spending 10 years ago (1.7T USD).

      1.7 T appears to be the Federal spending from 1999. (1.702 T)
      The equivalent figure from 2009 is 3.518 T.

      Why round 0.5 up, but not 0.7? Laziness, ignorance or attempt at wilful deception?

    61. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I generally agree with your argument that

      "the citizens decide" is a very weak argument

      , I will point out an exception to your thought process:

      Of course, the rich guys either get ignored or get attacked for being selfish, probably by people who would rapidly become unemployed and unemployable under the tax system they advocate when the business owners were no longer creating jobs for them.

      Here, your lack of understanding of economics is showing: "rich guys" do not create jobs, nor do they have an inherent quality or property that affords them an attribute of creating jobs, in fact if there were no "rich guys" around there will still be jobs to go around. People will still work. The type of work may be different, for example instead of making minimum wage at Walmart for the rich executives who "created" these Walmart jobs, people would be doing something else. Same with the genius executives at McDonald's, if they weren't around people would be working at mom-and-pop restaurants and actually getting tips to boot.

      If anything, being rich (or more specifically hording money) is actually a drain on the economy because this money isn't being redistributed (either through taxes or spending) for economic growth and output (ceteris paribus). Of course there will always be some amount of redistribution (for example stock market investments generally get redistributed from the "investor" to the the banking community [which even benefits places like Nigeria], and so too with taxes). At the more extreme end you have monopolies (of the rich) that stifle economic growth and standard of living. Of course you're right, rich people aren't inherently evil, and at the same time unions aren't inherently corrupt. It's the ignorance and self-interest of people in general that we need to worry about. The self-interest appears to be where people develop their ideology (economic or religious; what have you).

    62. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by digitig · · Score: 1

      Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements?

      This won't be as simple as salary paid by an employer. This will be money that is shuffled all over the world through a tangled web of holding companies in order to hide it from the taxman. If the accountants are doing it right then the taxman won't be able to see it, but would be very interested to check whether all of those shuffles are legal.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    63. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I think the concept of property rights needs to be redefined. I believe all people in a country should have an interest in all the productive resources in the country. Property rights should be understood as an agreement for society to give up claims on those resources, in return for the expectation that we will tax the returns on those resources. It is also in society's interest that these resources are held by the people who can get the best return on them, and that is essentially what capitalism gives us, although not necessarily guaranteeing it. For greater efficiency, we allow corporations and individuals to own large tracts of land, necessarily to the exclusion of most individuals. However, this social contract should include a welfare provision, because we can't guarantee full employment, and we can't offer every unemployed person a piece of land which they can work to make themselves a livelihood (i.e. to eat, to shelter themselves and their children).

    64. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I like the Swedish system! Criminals shouldn't get away because of technicalities, as long as there are appropriate safeguards, in this case, police being prosecuted for wrongdoing in obtaining evidence.

    65. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by digitig · · Score: 1

      Secondly, if it wasn't for the biased tax system, there wouldn't be a demand for finding tax loopholes, lobbying for tax changes, or shipping your money out of the country.

      Do you really believe that if tax were a fixed percentage of income, or even a fixed sum, that nobody would try to get out of paying it or try to get the amount reduced?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    66. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I accept your analogy.

      If you stay in the hotel, you pay the bill. If you don't stay in the hotel you don't pay the bill.
      If you stay in the country, you pay the taxes. If you don't stay in the country you don't pay the taxes.

      You are free to stay in a cheaper hotel, with less services, if one will take you.
      You are free to stay in a cheaper country, with less services, if one will take you.

      What you don't get to do is stay in a 5 star hotel/country and pay the bill of a one star hotel/country.

    67. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Complete Fallacy. Absolute Complete Fallacy.
      Income tax pays for non of those things in the UK, they are either paid for by local councils or specific tax (e.g. road tax).
      In the UK about 90% of all tax is paid to individuals who earn more than £60k, meanwhile the "poor" are left with £55 per week, about the only exception to this is the NHS, ands that's just because it is cheaper to keep people healthy and have them pay tax to the rich, than have them off work "cos they are ill".

    68. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      If you want that dangerous pothole down the road fixed, you can pay for it, and on that note no we will not be building a second bridge just because the traffic is bad because you guys haven't paid for it yet.

      I live in Cambridge, UK. We had potholes for months after the winter freeze last year, because our local council didn't have the ability to get them fixed fast enough and in many cases cheap, low quality road maintenance in the past had led to increased damage during the chill. I don't know how much damage was caused to vehicles, not to mention the various injuries, during those months, but I imagine it was significant. Did I mention that many places in this country also ran out of material to grit the roads during the freeze, leading to dangerous driving conditions and more than a few accidents for cyclists and pedestrians?

      As for building new infrastructure, another one of our many local authorities here is responsible for pushing through a guided bus service at public expense over the past few years. It was never going to do what it was supposed to (as anyone with basic education in physics who looked at the plans could tell you). It was never going to be done on the original timetable or for the original budget. It has caused vast disruption across much of our city for months at a time in order to get the infrastructure in place. And right now, we still don't have the busway, our local authorities are in an extended legal battle with the contractors, but we've suffered from heavy disruption to our local road network and the associated costs to our local economy and quality of life for several years. It turns out that the planners who assess the value of various "improvements" to the road network don't even consider the costs of disruption to existing services in their cost/benefit calculations. Oh, and our local authorities are maliciously anti-car, but because of electoral technicalities they manage to retain power anyway. See my earlier post about the dangers of electing a single political representative with whom you might agree about many but not all things. Did I mention that the woman responsible for pushing through the guided bus plans, in the face of thousands of statements of opposition from local residents and almost no public support, was promoted?

      Public schools? Yeah we got those, $10000 per year please.

      You are ignoring the fact that without the state artificially propping things up, competition would rapidly drive down the cost of private education. If all children were educated privately, the fees would in most cases be far less than what the small number of prestige private schools charge today.

      In any case, if you don't think paying a substantial chunk of your income to ensure highly skilled teachers for your child is one of the best investments you can ever make, we are never going to agree on this one. The state pays a terrible wage for a job as important as teaching, and while some very good people do accept that and work for state schools anyway, all too often you get what you pay for.

      What do you mean garbage collection? You haven't paid us the $10 monthly fee to do it.

      Our local authorities reduced our bin collections to biweekly, and since that time have still missed several collections per year, leaving us with unhygienic, odorous, waste eyesores sticking around for weeks at a time.

      I would pay what you ask in a heartbeat if I could fire the local refuse collection people (and keep the tax that pays them) and hire a private firm who would actually provide an acceptable level of service instead.

      Oh what you just got unfairly dismissed from your work because your boss didn't like that you wouldn't sleep with him? Tough, take it to the courts, we've shut down our fair work tribunal. Turns out they wanted to get paid too.

      Given that literally hundreds of courts are likely to be closed across our country over the comin

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    69. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leprechaun gold.

      Irish Slave Labor?

    70. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that under an excessively punitive tax regime, those with the most wealth (businesses and rich people) may very well do exactly that. The consequence is that instead of getting some tax revenue from those people, the nation gets none, and to continue the metaphor, it goes out of business because there are no longer enough patrons willing to pay the excessively high prices it charges.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    71. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by lxs · · Score: 1

      Righties waffling about socialism are as tedious and wrong as lefties calling everybody a fascist.

    72. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leprechauns and pixies can make the roads and provide the services.

      No longer will us Leprechauns save your sorry asses. You took all all gold, turned our land into a bizarre catholic rape island where it is illegal to speak out against the religions, and deny our existence. Fix your own god damned roads this time, and good luck getting a pixie to do anything but smoke crack. Seriously, like humming birds when you put some vodka in the nectar.

    73. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What you don't get to do is stay in a 5 star hotel/country and pay the bill of a one star hotel/country.

      Yes I do, if the quality of service isn't up to what it should be relative to the price I'm paying.

      When enough people do that the manager gets the sack (yes Gordon, you fat, oily, Scottish twat, I am looking at you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    74. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Society. Look it up. You're not your own kingdom and even if you were are we to be your slaves? Why should we talk to you, since you obviously want nothing to do with the rest of society? Or are you promoting a society where macho alphas constantly try to club each in fear of being clubbed back, because any resemblence of organized protection has gone down the drain because noone wants to pay for it?

      Counter my argument with "but we'll pay for protection!" and I'll laugh, because from there we could go on to cover more and more until you got the modern society you despise and loathe so much. Taxation is paying for that society and the mutual goods. Since nobody likes a dictator serving himself we're trying to organize around a democracy to best judge what is needed. That may not work perfectly and in varying degrees fail somewhat, but thus far it is the best we fucking got. So until some better solution for governance shows itself we just got to stick with it instead of being crying 4-year olds who want everything and supply nothing.

    75. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jobless students without work? thank government for backing up student loans and the notion that a human being without a degree is worthless so everybody has to have one. Value of a degree is watered down so you need invest additional 5 years and a ton of money to get baseline qualifications for almost any 'worthwile' job. Government backing means banks have no problem with loaning and that causes huge stream of money flowing to the education 'industry' either way.
      If only people looked at higher education as an ordinary investment in their personal 'business', they would instantly recognize that return on that investment is extremely lousy and they wouldn't bother. There is no way that students can pay the debt of 100k so studying in current environment doesn't make any sense. Thank the complete economic cluelessness of the people that this educational industry thrives. Under the 'libertarian rule' current situation would never exist so you can't really blame it.

      What's wrong with medical insurance one would provide without government intervention? People can insure their cars, homes, i am sure they can insure their health and life too, i don't see how it's any different
      Very basic rule of the economy is when the parties taking part of the deal don't pay from their own pocket and payment is managed by a 3rd party, costs are inflated because there is nobody really interested in controlling costs. Patients don't see the costs so they go to the doctor every time they sneeze, get dozens of unnecessary treatments or expensive tests and that inflated price has to be paid somehow.
      Besides, libertarians argue that one should have to be able to opt out of any service if one is willing to provide it on one's own and that any system even socially sensitive one, like healthcare should be economically sound, no exceptions allowed. Problem with government provided services is they can pretend they are immune to basic economic rules but they are not, unintended hidden consequences will bite the ass of an average taxpayer down the road. Government run systems don't have to be efficient because they can always raise taxes to cover the difference and 'customers' can't vote with their feet.

    76. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by R_the_Leprechaun · · Score: 2, Funny

      And civilization is doomed if the news ever gets out that barbecued leprechaun tastes great when sprinkled generously with pixie dust...

      Here is proof that humans preach genocide. You monsters, trying to incite the world into hunting us and EATING us as well? MONSTERS!

    77. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Depends what numbers you are looking at not that it matters, the year is not over yet. It's more than 2x since the year 2000, the gov't grew by a factor of 2 in 10 years, while the trade balance has worsened by about the same factor.

      No, I don't care to deceit anybody, my argument stands.

    78. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Goaway · · Score: 1

      By your argument, it is perfectly OK for the government to take as much tax revenue as it likes, and I think a lot of us would have a problem with that, too.

      His argument says no such thing.

    79. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK, the previous administration came to power on a political technicality without ever facing a public vote.

      Wrong. Every member of the House of Commons had won his seat at either the previous general election or an intervening bye-election. And Labour had more MPs than all the other parties put together. Not much of a technicality, given that in the UK the PM is even less directly elected than it is on your side of the pond.

      If you think the PM = "an Administration", then you know so little about UK politics that you're using an American term. In your terms it's not really any different (arguably, it's less significant) than when Ford replaced Nixon.

      The administration they succeeded had the explicit support of only 1/5 or so of the electorate

      Blatant lie. 35% is a very generous fifth.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    80. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule," a legal doctrine often mentioned in connection with a concept of some evidenced being obtained as the "fruit of a poisonous tree.""

      IANAL, but my understanding, both before and after reading the upcoming link, is that evidence can only be thrown out if obtained improperly by a government official or a citizen doing so at the request and/or with the knowledge of a government official. Anything stolen or otherwise acquired sans government involvement is not subject to the exclusionary rule.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    81. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The problem is that under an excessively punitive tax regime, those with the most wealth (businesses and rich people) may very well do exactly that.

      Who's talking about an excessively punitive tax regime? We're talking about the tax regime that is, or thereabouts. And still there's plenty of rich people. Rich people get far more out of society than they put in. That's how they got rich.

      Arguably, taxes are at their lowest level since 1950.
      http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

    82. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "If you stay in the country, you pay the taxes. If you don't stay in the country you don't pay the taxes."

      You are missing a corner case here. You are assuming everyone is free to leave the country, when in fact convicted felons cannot get a passport. Before you say "who cares; they are criminals" bear in mind that, ignoring for the moment that that would be a ridiculous point to make, there are many people convicted of crimes they did not commit.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    83. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In the UK about 90% of all tax is paid to individuals who earn more than £60k

      Excellent! Where do I sign up?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    84. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      savings are the key to have economy moving.

      Income - saving = spending, and one man's spending is another's income.

      So if everyone saved everything then nobody would have a job.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    85. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Depends what numbers you are looking at not that it matters, the year is not over yet.

      None of the figures on the page you link to match the figures you claimed. Your claimed figure of 1.7 T was from 1999. 10 years on from that is 2009. 2009 is definitely over, and the figure is as I said.

    86. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're just displaying the typical collectivist mistake of not realizing that regardless of if you pay for it out of your pockets or just pay higher taxes for it, you're still fucking paying for it either way.

      Actually you're just missing my point. The fact is there is a very big difference between paying for it via taxes vs paying for it myself. The government itself eludes to the fact that they govern. Sure I would take my trash to the dump, or pay someone to pick it up, but I know enough mouth breathing f-wits to realise that if basic services like garbage collection would be left up to the choice of the people that the garbage would pile up in the streets while the now richer population spends their hard earned money on booze and plasma TVs. Also by becoming a citizen of a country you abide by the laws of the country. Income tax is governed by a law that essentially says for every X you make Y belongs to the government. At the end of the financial year you are free to file a tax return to use some excuse for getting a portion of the money back, but the money does not belong to you, this is also why it typically doesn't appear in your bank account when you're not committing tax fraud.

      By not paying your taxes you essentially become no better than the aforementioned f-wits who thing everything is someone else's problem and they shouldn't have to pay for it.

      And no I do not live or pay any tax in Europe.

    87. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No you don't.

    88. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You do realise that in places with socialised medical care, you are typically still not covered for treatment of rarer/more expensive conditions, right?

      I'm not seeing how that is worse than not being covered for anything at all.

      This is the great misconception of public service provision: just because the government operates a service, this does not magically mean that money grows on trees and the service will provide all things to all citizens.

      our misconception is that such a misconception exists. Nobody thinks public health care can cure incurable diseases.

      However numerous studies have shown that the US system is considerably less efficient than what you'd no doubt refer to as "cawmyerniss" systems like in the UK or France when it comes to quality versus cost.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    89. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by VariableRob · · Score: 1

      Blatant lie. 35% is a very generous fifth.

      35% of 61.4% who voted, or only 1/5 or so of the electorate, gave their explicit support.
      Oh wait, that's exactly what he said!

      --
      The seriousness of the above post is not guaranteed.
    90. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Erm I agree on all of what you said and am of the same mind but you missed my point. Essentially what I was trying to say is that if the world is left to fend for itself it will reduce itself to the basics. I find humans by nature to be moronic at best. I see friends struggling with credit card debt because they "needed" a 50" plasma TV. I know someone who earned $200 per week and every weekend without fail spent $100 of it on alcohol and scummed the rest of his sorry existence off his parents. What do you think they would contribute to matters of society?

      If the government wasn't responsible for garbage collection I'd either take my trash to the dump (15min drive) on the weekend, or pay a company to do it. But for every 1 of me I'm sure there's one douchebag who lets the garbage pile up in his backyard. Sure paying for education is fine as well, and I already have a fund prepared for a private school education for the future kids, but again for every person who thinks about the future there's another out there who's an absolute deadshit parent who's kids would flat out get no education other than how to drink yourself to death if public schools cost even half as much as lower end private schools.

      If society is left to itself it would slowly disintegrate. The middle class would be slightly more wealthy, and the lower class would become trash, and the country would slowly bury itself in it's own filth. I'm sad to hear that things aren't going well with your local government. Our local council also isn't made up of the brightest project managers in the world, actually it's probably not much better than yours, but the point is someone out there is making the effort, even if futile, to try and improve or maintain your quality of life, and I highly doubt you'd see a new bus let alone a new busway if left up to the choice of the people.

    91. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There's no general bar on convicted felons getting a passport. Individual felons might specifically be barred where there is good reason to do so. Which is perfectly reasonable, and nothing to do with a discussion on taxation.

    92. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the so-called super-rich: the ones who earn millions a year through highly-rewarded jobs in banking, executive positions, or media/sports deals. Sure, there are a few such people around, and perhaps they won't miss another few thousands here and there.

      The problem is that higher tax rates no longer affect only those people. Here in the UK, we have introduced new super-high-rate taxes that start to hit people with six-figure incomes, while the "traditional" higher rate tax band now hits a lot of skilled professionals with somewhat above average incomes but who are hardly off the chart in the way the super-rich are. We're talking about some school heads of department, experienced tradesmen who run their own businesses, experienced technical people like software developers, mid-high level police officers, etc.

      Notice that all of these people have in common that their jobs are genuinely valuable in one way or another, and that they required a lot of training and/or experience to develop their skills (and probably spent several years studying and/or working very low-paid jobs or unpaid internships to get there). And yet today, they are deemed "rich" by our tax system, and hit with a 40% marginal tax rate. I guess they're "lucky" compared to those who make it into six figures, whose marginal rate is actually more like 60% for a while.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    93. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Lets say there are 2 groups of people. One group produces a lot of items, goods, the other group spends a lot of money to buy those items and goods but it does not produce any goods for the first group to consume.

      So while one group is productive, the other is not. Of-course the second group is spending money to buy the goods that the first group produced. But where is this money coming from? If the money is coming from a printing press and/or borrowed (even borrowed from the first group) then what is happening is that the first group, that is producing, is really subsidizing the second group.

      Now, if the second group stopped consuming, the first group would have to consume the goods it produced all by itself.

      ---

      Let's connect the dots:

      US gov't is borrowing money from the world and the world is importing good into USA. The trade balance is clear, the USA is a net importer and it only exports cash. Of-course it prints/borrows the cash. Now, so far the world was expecting that at some point the USA will start producing again, after all US was a net exporter of goods for the longest time after the war, because the rest of the world needed to rebuild after the war and USA really did not. The reason the USD is still accepted around the world is of-course artificial at this point, USA went to great length to keep its currency 'reserve' currency, I believe the latest/longest wars confirm this.

      So far every other nation keeps printing money together with US printing money, thus all currencies are being devalued (thus gold and other commodities are going up, because in reality gold is money and fiat is paper that's printed out of existence, raced to the bottom, inflated, whatever you call it.)

      USA keeps interest rates low, keeps printing t-bills, keeps printing dollars. 4-5 days ago Bernanke came out with a statement that the mandate of the Fed is not price stability, but price growth. The existing inflation is not enough for him (obviously there is huge inflation, because prices are not allowed to fall) but not only he wants the current levels of inflation to keep up, but he wants the Fed to create even more inflation.

      Of-course his reasoning is that by creating more inflation he really diminishes the value of dollar and thus makes the US labor market less expensive (not in nominal, but in actual value). But with all the regulations and taxes and subsidies to monopolies and gov't spending it is not enough to have high inflation to push the labor costs down.

      The labor in US is going to keep being expensive, the inflation will only cause the US citizens to pay more for food, energy and goods that they don't even produce anymore apparently (from the trade deficit.)

      So what is really needed is:

      1. For the Fed to stop printing money.
      2. Let the interest rates go where the market takes them.
      3. The interest rates will go up and prices on various big items will fall, like house prices will fall.
      4. Fall of house prices will cause the US banks to collapse (which is why the Fed keeps inflating) because the banks are still holding the toxic mortgages.
      5. The gov't will no longer be able to continue spending, because the interest rates on the market will go up, probably into high double digits.
      6. The US gov't will have to stop spending. This means they will have to stop spending by 99%.
      7. The foreign creditors will have to take a hit. They will have to be told that they can't get 100% of their investment back. And it's good for them. Either US prints the money and turns them useless and then creditors get 100% in USD but maybe 5% in their currency, or US liquidates, pays back maybe 60% in USD but at least the creditors may get 30-50% in their currencies.
      8. The regulations, taxes, subsidies will have to stop. The wars will have to stop. All troops from all over the world will have to come home. Without borrowing and printing, USA has pretty much no way to maintain their armies, it's impossible, they can't pay.
      9. The US population will s

    94. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Blatant lie. 35% [wikipedia.org] is a very generous fifth.
      If by electorate he means people eligable to vote (as apposed to people who actually voted) then he is about right. Turnout was 61% so 21% (just over a fith) of people eligable to vote voted labour.

      But that aside under a system where the mix in parliament fairly represented the voters no party would have had absolute power for many years whereas with the current system we have generally a party gets absoloute power (the last election being an unusual exception) and which party gets it can be altered by a relatively small swing in the votes.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    95. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      1.7T in 1999...3.52T in 2009...1.7 T*2=3.4 T, so even at 3.52 in 2009 it's still more than double. Not as much as he claimed but not wrong at all. $120 billion is nothing to sneeze at.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    96. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you stay in the country, you pay the taxes. If you don't stay in the country you don't pay the taxes.

      Unless you are American, in which case you're on the hook for US Federal taxes no matter which country you happen to live in.

    97. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Please save your ad hominem attacks for someone who is going to appreciate them. I am from the UK, and well aware of how our political system works, thank you.

      Realistically, the PM does control the administration. The PM chooses the Cabinet, who in turn have executive authority for almost everything central government does. The PM is also normally the leader of the party in power in Parliament, which means they set the legislative agenda. Finally, it is abundantly clear by now that No 10 can intervene to call any shots it wants to in practice, other than possibly a direct confrontation with No 11 over financial matters.

      Labour having more MPs than everyone else put together at the previous election was a joke on several levels, not least that they didn't even win the popular vote in England, and is a prime example of how messed up our current FPTP system is. A majority of MPs most certainly does not imply a popular mandate under such a system. Oh, and all those Labour MPs who were elected at the previous election, which you use as some sort of moral basis to justify enthroning Gordon Brown as the worst PM in recent memory, were of course elected on repeated, explicit, unambiguous statements that Tony Blair would serve a full third term and voting Labour did not mean they were voting for what actually happened.

      Finally, on the statistics, you aren't quoting the figures that match what I wrote, as someone else already pointed out to you.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    98. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which is why those government-less places around the world - like Somalia - are renowned for their vast networks of well-maintained roads and plumbing. I hear ya!

      But on the plus side, Somalia stil has plenty of private "military". And they will still take property off you of course. You just won't get roads or plumbing in return.

    99. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing how that is worse than not being covered for anything at all.

      It's not, but you imply a false dichotomy. Absence of compulsory state-funded medical insurance does not imply absence of any form of medical cover at all. This isn't really the point I was trying to make, however, and it's obviously a far more complex issue than we're getting into here, as the various problems with medical care in places like the US demonstrate.

      our misconception is that such a misconception exists. Nobody thinks public health care can cure incurable diseases.

      And yet the post I replied to wished a "rare and painful disease" on someone, the assumption being that such a disease would be covered by the national health provision even though it would not be covered by expired insurance.

      However numerous studies have shown that the US system is considerably less efficient than what you'd no doubt refer to as "cawmyerniss" systems like in the UK or France when it comes to quality versus cost.

      Cite, please. For one thing, why is the US policy the only non-national one you consider relevant, and for another, by what metrics is it considerably less efficient than the UK's NHS?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    100. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      You are free to stay in a cheaper country, with less services, if one will take you.

      What you don't get to do is stay in a 5 star hotel/country and pay the bill of a one star hotel/country.

      And yet increasingly governments seem to think its OK to make people pay for the expensive hotel even when they are staying in the cheap one. This started with the move away from taxing income on a territorial basis to taxing it on a global basis. Now a few countries seem to be following the US and taxing on the basis of citizenship not residence or making it very very hard to give up residence for taxation purposes - US citizens pay Uncle Sam even if they've never worked a day in the US.

    101. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I appreciate what you're saying, and I'm sure there is some truth to it. Perhaps I just prefer to look more charitably on people until I have reason to doubt them, while you are more naturally cautious/conservative.

      There certainly are people meeting the particular stereotypes you described, I agree. I think we have a general problem in society today with people growing up and assuming adult roles without learning the kind of independence and sense of responsibility that should go with that.

      I attribute much of that to the nanny state and all that comes with it: hand-holding throughout education to ever greater ages, an overly generous benefits system that can become a lifestyle choice instead of the social security safety net it was meant to be, and so on.

      I suspect, though of course I can't be sure from nothing but a thought experiment, that we would be in a far better state if we didn't encourage people to drink themselves stupid or breed children as a source of income, by not clearing up after such people every time they make a mistake in life. I believe in second chances and people's ability to change, but sometimes they need a catalyst to do that and the support system means they never find one, so a lot of people get into a mess just because they can.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    102. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      This story is about the UK, not the US. Our tax situation is rather different.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    103. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, I have been getting hit with AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) for several years in the same way. I actually have very few "write offs" on my taxes anyway (a mortgage and a couple of kids; almost nothing else). Yet, the AMT system (which was designed so that "rich" people could not get out of paying taxes entirely) decides that I don't pay enough and takes more. I fall into that salary band which puts people into the roughly "upper middle class" range. Not wealthy by a long shot. But since the AMT income amounts have gone up so slowly compared to inflation many people who are not "rich" are paying it. I saw some projections recently that showed if the system is not "fixed" (better indexed for inflation) that 80% of taxpayers in the US will be paying AMT within 10 years. It's ridiculous to find out that even though your employer does all the proper tax withholding, social security withholding, state tax, etc., etc. (amounting to 45% of your paycheck) that you still have a tax bill at the end of the year because of AMT - and often that bill is high enough that you know owe an additional "penalty" for "late payment" of said additional tax.

    104. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why those government-less places around the world - like Somalia - are renowned for their vast networks of well-maintained roads and plumbing. I hear ya!

      Have you never heard of private toll roads? I've driven on several and they are usually better kept, cleaner and safer.

      Somalia was a shithole before the government collapsed. Yet, magically, you expect perfection overnight or else you'll bring it out as a strawman to argue in favor of rule by force.

      So, you have no problem with the threat of violence to collect taxes when it's other people doing it but if I refuse to pay for roads are you willing to point a gun at me personally to take my property?

    105. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying 51% of the population in a geographical area can just declare that entire area a "hotel" and if I don't like it I'm supposed to go to another "hotel"? I see two problems with this. One, nothing justifies such a huge swath of land being under the control of a limited number of people. Two, I don't want to stay in a hotel. I want to stay in a house that I built and own. Where can I go to do that, the bottom of the ocean?

    106. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I guess you totally missed my point, which is that assuming someone can just leave the country if they don't like it is making a very false assumption (and you'd have to pay more attention to what was written in this thread to get why this point is absolutely pertinent to the discussion).

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    107. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And yet today, they are deemed "rich" by our tax system, and hit with a 40% marginal tax rate. I guess they're "lucky" compared to those who make it into six figures, whose marginal rate is actually more like 60% for a while.

      Ask a resident of the third world whether they think 60k is rich. Your wealth, just like ours, is predicated upon their suffering.

      What I find ridiculous, however, is how the 1% that owns 50% of everything thinks they should pay no higher a percentage of the tax burden. Clearly if they get half of everything they ought to be paying half the taxes, since the system is what permits them to own anything they ought to be paying for their fair share of the system. 1% paying 50% of the taxes? If 1% owns 50% of the wealth, then yes, they should pay 50%. I'm not willing to pay a disproportionate amount of my income to protect Rupert Murdoch's possessions, or Bill Gates'.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    108. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Ok, lets say you build a toll road. No tax involvement at all. Simple deal: You provide the capitol, and charge people to use it. Except... how do you make sure people pay?

      There's a complete difference between preventing people from stealing services at gunpoint and forcing them to pay for services at gunpoint. That's the difference between toll roads and public roads that you fail to see. Nobody is saying that you don't have a right to use violence to defend your property. If you want someone out of your house, off your road, whatever, you can use violence to make that happen.

    109. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Marcika · · Score: 1

      However numerous studies have shown that the US system is considerably less efficient than what you'd no doubt refer to as "cawmyerniss" systems like in the UK or France when it comes to quality versus cost.

      Cite, please. For one thing, why is the US policy the only non-national one you consider relevant, and for another, by what metrics is it considerably less efficient than the UK's NHS?

      Have a look at any statistic that compares national health systems. The US is unique in that it spends massively more than any country per capita on healthcare, and still doesn't get any better outcomes than other wealthy countries who spend half as much. That is usually referred to as "inefficiency". (Fun fact: The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the entire NHS, and that's without the entire private health insurance industry and personal co-payments...)

      And other non-nationalized systems might be relevant (Singapore has an efficient, working one), but the transition to a system such as those is hard to impossible.

    110. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      The way I understand tax law of various countries (UK included), is that every country OTHER than the US, does NOT tax it's citizens based on foreign income.

      You've got that quite wrong.

      In the UK, income tax is calculated by finding your income world wide, calculating the correct amount of tax for that income according to UK law, and subtracting income tax paid in certain countries that the UK have tax agreements with.

      In Germany, income tax is calculated by finding your income world wide, calculating what percentage of that income would have to be paid in tax according to German law, then finding your total income in Germany, and charging the tax rate (percentage) calculated for world wide income on the money earned in Germany.

      That's the only two countries where I know the tax laws, and in both these cases you are wrong.

    111. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of-course I am also for a flat income tax of 0%.

      You are retarded. Like many people that come from left-wing countries and swing to become ultra-right-fanatic.

      Income tax is the only tax system that provides for *fairness*, where poor don't need to pay tax while more well-off can pay more. You should really look up the notion of DISPOSABLE INCOME. Sales tax is the most unfair tax regime possible. You might as well go back to living in middle ages.

      And yes, maybe the idea of income tax is foreign to you because in USSR your income was taxed 90-95% before you even got your wages.

    112. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the UK the tax take isn't particularly high now either. In fact it's lower than at any time under Thatcher for example.
      http://www.adamsmith.org/a-history-of-tax-freedom-day/

      And the same empty threat of rich people leaving if overtaxed applies here too. It's rather reminiscent of the dire predictions that the National Minimum Wage would cause mass bankruptcies in some industries, and widespread unemployment. It did nothing of the kind. A decade later it was city bankers that fucked up the economy and caused those effects.

    113. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are retarded

      -then why do you bother replying?

      Income tax is the only tax system that provides for *fairness*

      - who said it's supposed to be fair? Secondly, if you read my comment with a little more than your ass, you would have noticed that I did mention a fact, fact that federal gov't spending used to be based on taxes of certain items and food and some basic necessities do not need to be included into those items.

      Alcohol, any sort of 'luxury' items, tariffs on imports etc., should be enough. More importantly, you completely missed the point of having sales taxes used as a feedback mechanism controlling the size of gov't by controlling the amount of money it is given to spend.

      Also it is quite possible to have a system, where people under certain income avoid paying any taxes at all, even sales taxes by filing their income statements.

      And yes, maybe the idea of income tax is foreign to you because in USSR your income was taxed 90-95% before you even got your wages.

      - it's not foreign, I have spent enough time in other countries paying income taxes, but now I found a place in the world where those are no longer applicable.

      So you may call me retarded, but it does not make your argument any stronger.

    114. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Yes, it must suck to be a pedophile, international fraudster or such like that's had passport privileges revoked. And for those few in those categories that have been wrongly convicted, the specific tax take is the least of their problems.

      But in endeavouring to make a case for those few, you'd have a far stronger one for no prisons than no tax. ANd by far stronger I do of course mean very weak indeed.

    115. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "And for those few in those categories that have been wrongly convicted, the specific tax take is the least of their problems.

      So despite your attempts to troll, the end result is that you concur that it is a problem ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    116. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if you had an IQ over 5, you'd notice that the necessary programs are ones that are best provided by government (such as roads, because it's too much of a hassle to have priviately owned roads) and ones that everyone equally has access to. Unnecessary ones are ones that serve no purpose but to take money from person A's wallet and put it in person B's wallet.

      Each citizen has a different definition of necessary so if you live in a society you simply have to accept that a lot of what you consider unnecessary is considered necessary by most people. Similarly, what you consider necesary isn't considered necessary by everyone. Roads are just one example, is it necessary to have asphalt or will gravel do? Access depends on placement and the type of vehicle you have.

      However, you're a greedy bastard who thinks that you should be able to steal all you want from people just because they worked harder and have more money than you.

      Already got said horrible disease. I was born with it and there's no cure.

      If your condition is unusual, it might not be profitable for any pharmaceutical company to research it. However, government-sponsored research could result in a cure since in case you're unaware of it, that's how virtually all medical breakthroughs have been made. Just look at Nobel prizes.

      However, unlike you, I understand that just because my life sucks it doesn't give me the right to steal money from other people to get treatment.

      It's not surprising that your life sucks considering the kind of attitude you have.

    117. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      sales taxes used as a feedback mechanism controlling the size of gov't

      Not sure how well this would work out. During the past recession a dozen or so states raised their sales taxes because people were unemployed as well as spending less. Support for a VAT is probably growing so that the government can maintain its usual spending when unemployment (excluding government jobs) finally reaches 100%.

    118. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what. So if you've been mugged or your house is on fire, the Libertarian Government will do nothing about it because your freedom is too important to be messed with.

      This thread is one long facepalm full of fail. No lender is going to loan money to you to buy a house unless you have fire insurance which will of course include access to private fire fighters. Just like no lender is going to loan you money to buy a car unless you keep car insurance on it. I see the same kind of myopic thinking on certain stories where some guy working on a problem for 20 years is told that his idea will never work because some slashdotter thinking about it for 20 seconds points out 3 obvious problems. Because, naturally, the guy working on it for 20 years would have never thought of those obvious problems and of course hadn't already figured out a solution 19 years ago. Read about anarchism before you make idiotic statements like this. All you're doing is making your ignorance public.

    119. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Not sure how well this would work out

      - it works better than income tax increases because people can control their spending and avoid buying items that are taxed, avoid buying too much of them. By increasing taxes the states would decrease spending but also they would decrease satisfaction with the gov't.

      So gov't would have to cut spending at some point instead of increasing sales taxes. You just can't increase sales taxes over and over without getting thrown out of office or without cutting spending.

      Support for a VAT is probably growing so that the government can maintain its usual spending

      - the point of the feedback mechanism is to reduce gov't spending.

      when unemployment (excluding government jobs) finally reaches 100%.

      - yes, and what good is gov't spending then? What would finance gov't spending at those levels? Who would give credit to any gov't that has a population that is 100% unemployed?

      Would you give a mortgage to a person who doesn't have a job? Why?

      So that person decides to print his own money, then you shouldn't accept that money.

      The point is exactly as I noted earlier to set up a Constitutional amendment to stop gov't from manipulating economy. It's not gov't jobs that need to grow in this economy, it's the private sector jobs and the proof is the ever increasing trade deficit. Only private sector jobs decrease trade deficit and gov't spending money reallocates the available credit from the private sector to gov't but it does not increase production capacity.

      What should happen is gov't should be 99% dismantled, the bills, the rules, the laws, the regulations should be abandoned, income taxes should be abolished, interest rates should be let go to where market forces take them, inflation should be stopped, all this so that economic activity could pick up and new business could start in an environment.

      Obviously there will be a period of time when this restructuring will cause major pain, but it's not like it will be possible to get out of this depression without major pain. The gov't is going to continue printing (the Fed chairman said it was his mandate to keep prices rising, so expect many new t-bills printed as well as dollars) and it will cause the depression to turn into a hyper-inflationary stagflation. It's not going to be pretty, where the gov't will take the economy. Without the gov't the economy will suffer initially but will restructure with falling prices for everything, with gov't inflation will kill currency and credit will not return to US for decades for sure.

      Young people will start leaving the country, why should they suffer, paying the taxes to support unsupportable gov't structure and spending and SS and UI etc.etc. when in fact the economy will be growing in other parts of the world, especially Asia, so expect the gov't to introduce some measures to force the people either to stay or at least to 'pay out their part' of the debt before they go, and good luck with that.

      I don't want to see USA turning into something like USSR even though not through ideology but through stupidity and complete ignorance of economics, politics and history.

    120. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Go to another country that will take you. Undertake whatever they require to gain citizenship. Visit your nearest US embassy, pay the fee and you no longer have any obligation to the US.

    121. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Ah, so what you want are the benefits of being a US citizen - the emergency extraction if where you stay becomes a war zone, the consular assistance in almost every country on earth, plus the option to return for your retirement and use medicare, all without paying?

      If you don't like it, renounce your citizenship. Your obligations to the US end at that point.

    122. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The trouble I have with ideas like Tax Freedom Day is that they oversimplify by trying to reduce the entire economic complexity of the country to a single figure. Maybe the average tax paid today isn't as bad as under Thatcher's economic restructuring etc., but I'll bet the distribution of who is paying what is radically different. If the average is broadly similar but we now have many more people staying in education for longer, an ageing population, and all the stealth unemployed who are on one kind of benefit or another and not contributing in the same way, how much tax does a person in full time employment in various jobs pay now compared to someone doing the same jobs in the past?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    123. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Albanach · · Score: 1

      They also completely ignore that about 30% of the increase is accounted for by inflation. So in 2009 dollars, the 1999 budget would have been $2.21T

    124. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      The U.S. also taxes those who leave the country and renounce their citizenship. If you keep your citizenship, you're taxed for that too.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    125. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Everyone knows that the infrastructure which enables modern civilization, like roads and plumbing, are paid for with leprechaun gold."

      By the same token then, you believe because there is a little government involvement, over government involvement is legal too. Without drawing a line, your argument is pretty petty and childish.

      And everyone knows the government is built on the backs of the people. What's your point here anyways? Oh, wait, you believe in leprechauns.

      What is wrong with people like you anyways? Most plumbing is paid for by property owners DIRECTLY, with the government orchestrating a cut. When you build a house, you pay for the plumbing inside it. If you have government provided water and sewer, you pay for the hookup AND the service usually the latter in monthly use fees. The main line hookups are included in the house cost when you buy the property. Anyone who looked at the details, is a contractor, or built their own house, knows you pay for the privilege directly, it's not provided for free or by your tax dollars usually (although depends on the area). Where I am, when they want to upgrade water and sewer, they raise rates, not taxes. And these sewer and water tie-ins are not cheap. Where I am, it's $15k to the home price for water and sewer. $8k is the sewer price. And you STILL pay for the pipe off the line. That's a crapload of money for a $75 of PVC pipe (yes, water in many areas is provided by PVC too) for lines, maybe an extra $100 if you come off a copper main, and $500 in labor for the ditch and drainage stone and asphalt (as they usually hook out onto public roads).

      "And the military to defend that civilization is created with pixie dust."

      Probably another Colbert watcher who thinks anyone who disagrees with his humor is a wingnut.

      Most people, even at the start of the US, considered military and defense part of the entire national interest that is reserved largely to the government. They understand that COUNTRY stands for something that we come together on.

      Everything else, is largely debatable. These generations of ours are so used to everything provided by the government. My water and my sewer is not provided by the government. I drilled a well, and I have a septic system. In fact, the government has done loads to mess with my water supply, with the prevailing use still of MTBE.

      Government should be more in providing fair services, not based on density, not based on value, but on minimizing harm. Military reduces harm. Common road rules too. Roads, not so much. You may like them, I don't. The highway system is largely disliked even by city planners these days too. And besides, many of the best ones are still toll roads, which pull in more income than the maintenance on them (indicates cleanly they could be privatized) and that's government jobs, we sit earning $20/hr holding a freaking stop/slow sign).

      In any case, I'm glad you are so dependent on the government for your life. People lived for thousands of years, and will still more, without government help. Governments fight wars, create greed, create a society that burning your world. My world, we grow stuff, and protected our own when it comes time. Up to you what world you prefer. I'd rather have one where the people feed the cities, then one where it's mandated the government food go to the cities. But hey, I guess we have the latter, so that argues for you, don't it?

    126. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality is more like staying in a cheap hotel/country but being forced to pay for 5 star hotel/country.

    127. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by andymadigan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Roads are fine, why do we need electrical subsidies? I don't care if oil prices go up. Police are fine too. That's half of your list right there, get rid of them and then tell me what my taxes are. If it's still 27.27% then you need to keep cutting. If I get a $1000 raise the government will take 44.5% of it and charge my employer an additional 7.65%. The "services" I receive from the federal government (tax rate: 22.08%) are not worth what I am paying for them. Since my state pays more in federal taxes than we get back, we could cut taxes simply by banning the federal government from giving money to the states. They use that power to control state laws anyway. Sorry, New Mexico and Mississippi residents, your taxes will increase by at least your federal tax rate (so you'll be paying it twice). Sure, the federal government would still need money, but at least we would know exactly how much.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    128. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get sidetracked into what seem to be a few personal sore points of yours, so I will simply point out that in many first world countries, higher income brackets do pay a disproportionate proportion of the tax burden relative to their incomes.

      For example, in the UK, the top 1% of earners pay around 1/4 of the income tax burden, the top 10% pay more than half, and the top 50% of earners pay around 90% of the total income tax take. These figures do correspond closely with the proportion of total wealth owned by each group, and the top 1% actual receive about 1/8 of the total national income. By the time you're at the 50% mark, you're only looking at an annual salary in the low-mid £20K region.

      As an interesting aside, the very top earners rarely pay UK income tax at all because of their multinational financial arrangements and accounting tricks, so they aren't the ones contributing the 20-something% of income tax on behalf of the top 1% bracket. It's the rich but not super-rich who really prop up the economy.

      As another interesting aside, the biggest step change in income tax receipts from the rich in recent memory came when Lawson dropped the higher income tax rate significantly, which actually resulted in more income being generated/declared in the UK and therefore more UK tax paid on it. Naturally, this also dramatically reduced the proportion of the overall income tax burden paid by the poorest members of our society.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    129. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The big benefit of Tax Freedom Day is it reduces the nonsense "overtaxed" arguments to a single number. It's always a shock to the political right when their attention is drawn to it, and they always try to make some excuse.

      For sure there's more people in education now. But in the 1980s, the few were highly subsidised. These days the larger numbers are far more self financing, ending their student careers with debts in 5 figures. As to "stealth unemployment", the heyday of that was again the Thatcher period, with vast numbers on YOPS, TOPS and the Enterprise Allowance.

      But again we can cut the crap by looking at a single number. The percentage of people 16+, in employment. Right now it's 58.5%. That's a pretty typical figure. During the Thatcher period it ranged between 54% and 60%. That tax freedom day applies to roughly the same numbers of workers and non workers as ever it did.

      The facts just don't reflect your beliefs.

    130. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "let's take away the roads, "

      I'd be fine with that. We have too many roads anyways. Roads means oil use, which leads to global warming, or so says the Democrats, right? Farmers still go their goods out without huge roads. Commerce still went on more locally.

      And even these days, most of the shit that gets to you travels across the ocean far more than on land anyways.

      "the OIL THAT RUNS YOUR CAR and is subsidized by WAR"

      This is an argument against government. You're were arguing for government and government control. Do you have that little voice inside your head that thinks critically about what you say before you speak? I guess not.

      But yes, I agree government subsidizes oil, oil exploration, oil use. I agree the true cost of energy is hidden. And that we spend more and more on energy to foreign governments, and increase our productivity, at the expense of the environment, and an increase in population which leads to more and more energy use.

      I agree wars area largely fault over resource limitations, and a larger population, well, it's provided by the government, and needs more resources.

      "the police that keep the neighbors from stealing your shit when you leave the house, "

      Before there was police, neighbors didn't steal shit from each other all that much. People are not all invasive, evil people. Those neighbors usually watch out for each other MORE THAN the police do. In my neighborhood, we have police, but when they show up to a triple murder at 2am taking 15 minutes to get there on empty roads with the police station being a 15 min RUN away from the location, we learn quickly to watch out for each other.

      You, otoh, must live in a city. Rural areas, the police are only good for filing reports so you can get the insurance claim, not for protecting your property. That's up to you. I've lived in cities, and usually the police can longer to find the property than to arrive, it's so dense. The persons who fires off 3 rounds than is followed up by 5 rounds, can WALK away from the scene at 3am, because the police will be there in 2 minutes, but won't figure who it is in a city block of apartments and townhomes.

      " and see how many of those dollars you earn..."

      Oh, so THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT IS REALLY ABOUT.

      We know that moron. Do you?

      And besides, what do you need money for? Oh, right, people that earn a lot, really just show how un-independent they are, as they are dependent on others solely for their water, food, and shelter, and lives.

      You know what we used to call those people? CHILDREN.

      "Moron."

      Indeed you are.

    131. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Your snotty dismissal ignores the fact that government is not the only means for building roads or plumbing. It does not follow that because some product or service is provided through the threat of violence today, that it can't be done otherwise.

      Okay, so how can it be done without government intervention? Please note: if your answer requires me to pay a fee whenever I'm traveling at that road, making me a de facto prisoner in my own home, it's not acceptable. Plumbing could be privatized, though, since I happen to live at the top of a hill, so I could simply ditch my garbage into a ditch and let gravity take care of it with no government regulation to stop me.

      Fear the Libertarians! If they get their way, the government will leave your local robber baron alone, free to oppress you! Oh, the Horror!

      Fixed that for you.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    132. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get sidetracked into what seem to be a few personal sore points of yours, so I will simply point out that in many first world countries, higher income brackets do pay a disproportionate proportion of the tax burden relative to their incomes.

      In theory they do it here in the USA, but in practice the top ten taxpayers tend to pay taxes on less than 50% of their income because of what is and is not taxed, what is written off, et cetera. They further enjoy the benefits of ownership of still more items, like effectively-private aircraft and autos with or without drivers, which are owned/operated by a business and which are written off as a loss. I don't know to what extent this is true in any other nation, but I do have some idea of how it actually works here. For example, if you own your home and have low property taxes and simple tastes then it's possible to make enough money to live actually quite well and not even have to file. That puts you well below the poverty line, but poverty is a condition and not a dollar amount. Most of us live quite wastefully; this is true of myself, and yet I am much less wasteful than the average, with a tendency towards reuse-mode recycling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    133. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You know, time and again I'm surprised at how most more fanatical libertarians would be worse off than they are today if a party representing their platform ever came to power.

      I think that most libertarians realize, deep down, that their party will never hold power, precisely because their platform is completely psychopathic. That lets them indulge in delusions of grandieur - "I could be John Galt, if the evil Government didn't opress me!" - without reaping the consequences of their platform. In other words, they are being extremely irresponsible while pretending to be responsible individualists.

      It's not even funny. It's just sad.

      As you said yourself, it's mostly a party of losers. Losers need these fantasies, just like alcoholics need wine, and for the same reasons. You're right, it's sad; but as long as we can prevent them from having any real power, let them indulge themselves and get what small comfort they can from such delusions. And they do tend to sabotage their own efforts; I suspect it's precisely because they do realize on some level that their platform is best left a fantasy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    134. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ultranova · · Score: 1

      *sigh* You're one of those people who don't understand property rights.

      Property rights don't trump all other rights.

      You do NOT have the right to someone else's money.

      The society, however, does have that right, on the account that money is really just a means of keeping score of who has right to how many of its resources.

      It doesn't matter if a politician passes a law saying it's ok for person X to steal a certain amount from person Y because person Y makes more money - it's still person Y's money and no one else has the right to it.

      Wrong. The society has the right to take back some of the resources it has allocated to person Y. This can happen through outright confiscation, or by printing more money and thus devaluing Y's money, or by taxation - that is, assigning a fee to some financial transactions.

      If you disagree, then you need to explain what you consider to be the source of property rights, and why they would trump all other rights, especially any other division of property. After all, you simply stating "this is mine" in no way trumps me from stating "no, it's ours instead".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    135. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information?

      I think it's a pretty clear-cut YES.

      Trade-secrets have been handled the same way pretty much forever. If you can keep your trade-secrets a secret, fine. But once they are exposed, even if by illegal activity (in fact, pretty much ALWAYS by illegal activity), everyone is free to use that (formerly secret) information themselves, for any purpose they choose.

      In the US evidence that is obtained without legal authority to obtain it can often be thrown out of court through the "exclusionary rule," a legal doctrine often mentioned in connection with a concept of some evidenced being obtained as the "fruit of a poisonous tree."

      In the US, information illegally obtained is generally only excluded from a court case if it's known (or suspected) that the person in question was a member of law enforcement, or otherwise acting as an agent of law enforcement (eg. Cop#1: "Hey Fred, go break into that house."). Otherwise, it's not a violation of the subject's constitutional rights.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    136. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The facts just don't reflect your beliefs.

      I don't understand. What "beliefs" of mine do you think the facts do not support? I don't see that anything you've posted actually contradicts anything I have written so far in this discussion, and I don't see why your apparent obsession with the mess that Thatcher's government made of various things five administrations ago is particularly relevant to anything.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    137. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by carigis · · Score: 1

      no.. if the UK governments actively solicited the french government to illegally obtain the information they MAY possibly be held responsible.. However if the french government waterboarded the person and stuck bamboo shoots up his fingernail then gave the uk govt the information because they wanted to be nice.. it would be perfectly legal as the uk cannot be responsible for another countries actions. and once it is given the information, it absolutly has the right to review it.

    138. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Which the insurance company will try very hard to avoid paying out on, just like they do now with car insurance, home insurance and health insurance. I have bought more than one car in my life and at no time was I expected to prove I had insurance on it. I've also had to fight an insurance company to get them to honour their obligations towards me.
          No Libertarian arguments have ever convinced me that a world where big business is allowed to do whatever it wants with zero oversight will be a better one. But feel free to try, only this time without the childish insults.

    139. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      At which point you are no longer American, and hence do not meet the condition of the fucking statement. Thus not invalidating it.

    140. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Under the 'libertarian rule' current situation would never exist so you can't really blame it.

      Under the "libertarian rule", I doubt we'd have a decent school system to begin with, and not even sure about higher education, either.

      In any case, it's all pure conjecture, because every time we tried to get closer to "libertarian rule" by deregulating the economy, it usually quickly goes to hell, and then people start demanding regulation.

      What's wrong with medical insurance one would provide without government intervention? People can insure their cars, homes, i am sure they can insure their health and life too, i don't see how it's any different

      The difference is that without medical insurance, you die much, much earlier.

    141. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Have you never heard of private toll roads? I've driven on several and they are usually better kept, cleaner and safer.

      I've driven on a few, and didn't notice any differences with public roads.

      Somalia was a shithole before the government collapsed. Yet, magically, you expect perfection overnight

      I don't expect perfection. I do, however, expect things to get better - but they don't. What I see in Somalia is that, when you take the government away, people with biggest guns just step in and call themselves a new government. And unlike the old guys, they're not big onto that whole "democracy" thing.

    142. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cite, please. For one thing, why is the US policy the only non-national one you consider relevant, and for another, by what metrics is it considerably less efficient than the UK's NHS?

      It's pretty straightforward. The US healthcare system costs 2.5 times more per capita than the NHS, and yet unlike the NHS leaves a large proportion of the population without any health care. The reason? 2 main things. There is a vast amount of administration in handling insurance - the NHS avoids all that by treating everyone. The second is that a vast amount of the healthcare spend ends up in profits in the pockets of the healthcare company owners. The NHS being public doesn't pay for those leeches.

    143. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And yet today, they are deemed "rich" by our tax system, and hit with a 40% marginal tax rate. I guess they're "lucky" compared to those who make it into six figures, whose marginal rate is actually more like 60% for a while.

      The tax system doesn't define anyone as rich. It simply applies a rising set of income tax bands. The highest marginal rate anyone in the UK pays is 50%, not 60%.

      The 50% rate only applies to incomes over £150K. *I'd* certainly describe anyone over that income as rich, and they can certainly afford 50% income tax on that proportion of their earnings above £150K. They don't need any sympathy.

      Incidentally, a recent study found that the happiest people in society are those earning around £50K. Earning more than that decreases happiness as does earning less. Perhaps taxing those high earners more is doing them a favour. Certainly it does society good. The most cohesive, low crime societies are those with the smallest earning gaps.

    144. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nacturation · · Score: 1

      And while I was staying in that hotel, the hotel manager decided to wage war with another hotel for no justifiable reason. Now I'm on the hook for the cost of this war, which definitely wasn't in the hotel brochure. (I'm playing devil's advocate here... your point is quite valid.)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    145. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One day, one of you might get that big chance and have a great career and realize that when you're on the receiving end of legalized rape that it's not cool. Oh, and before you scream about how I'm "rich", hardly - I grew up poor, worked my ass off, and now I make a whopping $30k a year (though I just started grad school, so hopefully after I graduate in a couple of years, I'll be making more than that).

      Make no mistake, I never imagined you were a high earner. Nor did the other poster that answered you. Your lines of thought always come from low to moderate earners who imagine one day they will suffer from the tax system. You are Joe the Plumber. Not very intelligent nor worldly wise and ready pray for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Mathematically better off under a Democrat tax regime, but too stupid to recognise it.

      Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on the other hand are number 2 and number 3 of the richest people in the world. They are no more Marxist than I am, but they recognise as I do that redistributive taxation is good, and that the richest are not currently taxed enough.

      This message will annoy you. But recognise for yourself, it is quite true.

    146. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the war. Though my major regret is the lives lost on both sides rather than the cost. However both Bush and Blair were re-elected after the Iraq invasion, so in a way it was on later editions of the hotel brochure.

    147. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what went completely over your Marxist head is the fact that people are forced to pay taxes for things that they do not want / benefit from - then there's the added injustice of the more successful you are, the smaller portion of your income you're allowed to keep.

      Do you imply that justice in taxation is a linear function? If so, what on earth is that logic based on?

      Don't worry - I know none of you will even actually consider a damn word I wrote - your blind ideology prevents you from considering that you might be wrong and as such, you refuse to even look at other points of view.

      If there's anyone here that is blinded by ideology and refuses to look at other points of view, it's you.

      It's utterly sociopathic to think that someone should be punished for working hard and being successful.

      Is it really a punishment to give something back to a society which facilitates individuals to achieve success by working hard?

    148. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, and the government has a right to the money it's earned from providing a protected, safe setting for business to flourish. Why do they not get their cut? It's like not wanting to pay the rent for your shop, even though you earn a shit-tonne of money from that very shop. No one earns money in a vacuum. We have to pay for what's in that vacuum, that allowed us to make that money. Basic fucking logic - you should look it up.

    149. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 1

      And civilization is doomed if the news ever gets out that barbecued leprechaun tastes great when sprinkled generously with pixie dust...

      Here is proof that humans preach genocide. You monsters, trying to incite the world into hunting us and EATING us as well? MONSTERS!

      I am terribly sorry for the misunderstanding. I very much _don't_ want the word to get out about how tasty barbecued leprechaun is. After all, human civilization would collapse without your leprechaun gold!

    150. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have to think how the removal of such things will affect everyone else, as again, you are not existing in a vacuum. If oil prices go up, you might indeed be fine, but the people you rely on for every facet of your life that involves dealing with anyone who earns less than you, could face great difficulty, which in turn causes you great difficulty, and then the next year your earnings plummet. There is more than just you and the government, you realise?

    151. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Are you this dumb on purpose? It must take a lot of effort.

    152. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Libertarian arguments have ever convinced me that a world where big business is allowed to do whatever it wants with zero oversight will be a better one.

      Any business can only do what you're willing to let them get away with. If you don't like a business doing X then don't give them any money. It's quite simple.

    153. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't expect perfection. I do, however, expect things to get better - but they don't.

      Actually they did get better.

      "Perhaps most impressive is Somalia's change in life expectancy. During the last five years of government rule, life expectancy fell by two years but since state collapse, it actually has increased by five years. Only three African countries, Guinea, Gambia, and Rwanda, can claim a bigger improvement. Telecommunications is another major area of success. With a variety of companies operating without burdensome government regulation, Somalia ranks high among African countries in the number of phone lines, mobile phone usage, and access to the Internet. According to The Economist, a mobile phone call in Somalia is 'generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa.'"

      Source: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

      Of course, your argument is still bullshit. Somalia cannot be used as an example of how anarchism would succeed in an otherwise prosperous geographical region. If the U.S. government were slowly dismantled peacefully with the majority of citizens supporting it, there would be quite a different story. Of course, don't let reality cloud your judgment. Think with your gut, always.

    154. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used to be a place of intelligent discussion, now it's simply a place for arrogant marxists to get together and support each others delusions that they have a right to someone else's money and that it's wrong to work hard and succeed in life, and if anyone comes along and dares to point out the injustice of forcing one person to pay another persons bills, they get modded troll for daring to THINK instead of just blindly following the delusions of a mad man.

      You seem to have no idea of how out-of-touch with reality you are. If you think your thought processes are normal and that you are not a Troll and a Flamer then it is you who are delusional. The sad thing is that you will most likely dismiss my comment as politically motivated bullshit. The people who need help the most are the ones who are less likely to want to be helped.

    155. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      This could never work in the USA.

      1. Prosecutor needs illegally obtained evidence to gain a conviction.
      2. Prosecutor makes a deal with the cops: Illegally obtain the evidence and I won't prosecute you.
      3. Now there's effectively no such thing as "illegally obtained" evidence

    156. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Citizenship implies a wish to subscribe to a given society. If you don't want to be American, feel free to unsubscribe. Wish to be an american but not pay for the membership? Cancel it and sign up with someone else. Wish to keep your rights and privileges with a given society but not pay for it? Sorry, can't help you freeload.

      As long as you hold onto your citizenship you act under the rules of that society (to the extent that they can exercise their legal branch) and gain whatever benefits it implies. Even if you don't use it, you have access to it and depending on the rules of the society you will have to pay for it. Unless there is some privilege you want to withhold there really is no reason to keep a citizenship to a country you do not live in. If you have a problem with the concept of "unsubscribing" from your nationality, don't worry, it is all a formality.

      Even if you don't read the magazines you subscribe to, you still have to pay for your subscriptions as long as you maintain them.

    157. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Sorry that the space was claimed before you were born. Really.

      There is a fundamental problem that I can acknowledge in that ideally a person should be able to dictate the specifics of their own livelihood. Unfortunately we live in a shared reality and this simply isn't possible.

    158. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      The price of gasoline is much higher in Europe than it is here, their society has yet to collapse.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    159. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      > if your answer requires me to pay a fee whenever I'm traveling at that road, making me a de facto prisoner in my own home, it's not acceptable.

      The status quo requires you to pay for the road whether you're using it or not, and you'll be made a prisoner if you refuse to pay. Why do you find that more acceptable than paying for what you use?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    160. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by jcr · · Score: 1

      >Which the insurance company will try very hard to avoid paying out on, just like they do now

      We do not have a free market for insurance today. Insurance companies are surrounded by regulations that make it difficult for new vendors to enter their markets, so they don't have to compete on reputation. If they did have to compete, then shirking on claims would make it very difficult for them to obtain customers.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    161. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the police somehow obtains evidence illegaly (e.g. through burglary), that will be prosecuted separately.

      Does this ever actually happen? In the US, there have been serious arguments against the exclusionary rule, on the grounds that the police should and will be punished separately for their acts. In practice, they never are, and those advocating against the rule on those grounds are either extremely naive or are simply being disingenuous.

    162. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the response now...

      "But but but deregulation causes things like banks too big to fail!"

      Well, yes and no. The reason why banks were overextending themselves in the first place was because we have FDIC which means that depositors don't try to put their money in banks that don't take too much risk and instead just go for the highest interest rates since their money is insured. That only encouraged banks to overextend themselves to come up with higher interest rates. So, the deregulation only exposed the problem that early regulations caused.

    163. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by russotto · · Score: 1

      As another interesting aside, the biggest step change in income tax receipts from the rich in recent memory came when Lawson dropped the higher income tax rate significantly, which actually resulted in more income being generated/declared in the UK and therefore more UK tax paid on it.

      Shh... sneering at the Laffer curve is de rigeur here.

    164. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to tax income, it is only fair to tax everyone at the same rate. Preferably there would be a consumption tax where you are taxed based on what you spend as opposed to taxing you just for earning money. It is unfair, regardless of which person is paying the higher percent, for one person to be allowed to keep a higher percentage than another person when those percentages are determined by the government. Also, isn't there some wacky bullshit about how the government isn't allowed to discriminate?

      Is it really a punishment to give something back to a society which facilitates individuals to achieve success by working hard?

      First off, forcefully taking is NOT giving. I know, I know, Generation Thief thinks that stealing is equal to charity, but it's not. Secondly, society didn't do shit to get anyone to where they are - they did it on their own. Sure, you can argue that teachers helped, except that they already pay for school. You had nothing to do with my success, and as such, you do NOT have a right to a single cent of my income. I had nothing to do with your success or Obama's success, and as such, I have no right to their income.

    165. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "popular" with "normal". 100 years ago if you'd gone up to the majority of Americans and suggested that they were obligated to give you some of their money, they'd have told you to get lost before they beat you senseless. Now society has gotten so fucked up that they think it's ok to steal as long as you benefit from it. We even have an entire political party devoted to punishing people who are successful and making it legal to steal from someone as long as they have more than you.

      I'm well aware that it's popular now to be greedy and demonize a person just because they worked harder than you. It's a sad and crumbling world you've created and it makes me want to give up - not because of the hatred from people like you, fuck you - your opinion means nothing to me, but because why should I put out the effort to do well in school and work hard at my job when I'll be vilified for it and punished for succeeding?

      You know what, I think I'll take your advice and become a good Socialist - I'll quit my job, drop out of grad school and mooch off the labor of everyone else and when you get annoyed that your hard earned money is being given to me, I'll tell you that you're "obligated" because you have more than me.

    166. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Where to start?
      You sit here claiming that you are anonymous (true) brave(you have to be kidding) guy (ok, whatever). Now, you are saying that you object to your nations taking of taxes. Yet, I will put money on it, that you drive on the roads, fly on aircrafts, get screaming mad if you feel that cops are not busting enough people, expect that cops, firemen, and ambulance would show up for you. I expect that you have used their state or national schools all the way through university level.

      Basically, you stay in a nation using their resources, while gripping about as a true coward. I would even guess that you have not served in the military, but then carp that dems were not back bush, but then carp that Obama has us in war but is not getting us out.

      I am guessing that you are a claimed neo-con (masquaraing as a republican), a teabagger, or a pseudo-libertarian (as opposed to a real one) within the USA.

    167. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      I know of no other country that taxes foreign income for non-resident citizens (and I know the tax rules, with respect to this, quite a few countries).

      Renouncing your US citizenship is not "all a formality", well if you are wealthy anyway.

      It's damn expensive since they hit you (if you meet an income/wealth cutoff) with a "let's pretend you liquidated *all* your assets today at market rates, how much capital gains would you have made - ok, pay tax on that right now" rule. So it might be cheaper to just keep the citizenship and pay the taxes every year (depending on the what that capital gains tax will be and what your future income will likely be).

      Most magazines don't charge you several multiples of the subscription cost to cancel the subscription.

    168. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The status quo requires you to pay for the road whether you're using it or not, and you'll be made a prisoner if you refuse to pay. Why do you find that more acceptable than paying for what you use?

      For three reasons:

      1. Unmetered utilities, that is, utilities that pay a certain fixed sum per some time interval, mean I don't have to try to limit my usage to some bare minimum. It also means that the provider can't simply rise the prices to the point where I can only afford to use those utilities for the barest minimum. This is why fixed-cost Internet is so popular.
      2. As is, I pay my share of all maintenance of society, from roads to police to fire department to army to social security. The size of this share is based on the size of my benefit from society, which in turn is roughly equal to the size of society's resources I have access to - in other words, my income and property. This is fairer that making everyone pay the same, regardless of how much they benefit.
      3. Under status quo, I can afford to pay, and am guaranteed to be able to no matter how my income evolves, since the payment is proportional to my income. In libertarian wonderland there is no such guarantee.
      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    169. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by software_god · · Score: 1

      If only this were true of US Citizens living abroad. I live in Italy, and pay my 5 star hotel/country tax rate (US Citizen) no matter where I am in the freakin' world. Forever. Without access to the services, just the passport.

      Mind you, I'm not about to give up my passport, but the whole tax thing makes me think about it every once and a while.

    170. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BagelTechNews · · Score: 1

      This is never going to be used as 'Evidence'. Its a lead and HMRC dont require warrant to investigate, enter or seize. They will conduct a 'Random' investigation in to these people and then discover evidence which will lead to a prosecution. HMRC use a 'Model for Life' and it tracks your inputs and outputs with an algorithm for reasonable adjustments of expenditure then there is a surplus which emerges and it is YOUR job to explain where the surplus is and why you have not paid taxation on that amount. If your good, they walk away with less penalty, if your bad THEY walk away with a lot more and the rule of thumb is that if your investigated, they are going to walk away with something. Your almost better being sure to point them in the direction of something to have. Its just a job and some are more pleasant that others at doing it. Most of us owe more than less

    171. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The highest marginal rate anyone in the UK pays is 50%, not 60%.

      No, I'm afraid it isn't. You are reading the headline figures, which is of course what the government would like you to read. You are not calculating the actual marginal tax rate, taking into account the horribly complicated set of taxes, allowances, credits, etc. You might like to google "UK 60% tax rate" and read what the accountants and professional bodies have worked out.

      *I'd* certainly describe anyone over that income as rich, and they can certainly afford 50% income tax on that proportion of their earnings above £150K.

      I guess we just have very different views on this. I'm not in that tax band, so I have no axe to grind here, but I find the idea that the government should automatically be entitled to claim as much of the money that someone has earned as the person themselves abhorrent. I don't see whether that person already has a substantial income or not as particularly relevant; in most cases, that extra money did not appear by magic, but because in some way the person receiving it did something to earn it that most people do not do.

      Such a high tax rate is also practically rather ineffective at generating tax revenue for the government: since you do seem to care about actual data, let me point you to the Lawson budget of 1988 that I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. Short version: he dramatically dropped income tax levels, including for the rich, and immediately afterwards the proportion of income tax coming from the higher earners jumped way up and the proportion coming from the less well-off fell sharply to match, as more income from the rich was declared in the UK and therefore subject to UK taxation.

      Incidentally, a recent study found that the happiest people in society are those earning around £50K.

      Careful: this is a correlation vs. causation thing. A lot of people who have a high income also work long hours in stressful jobs, sacrificing family life, social interaction, etc. It is not hard to imagine how someone choosing such a lifestyle could wind up with all the money they ever wished for yet nothing worthwhile to spend it on, but that does not mean that everyone with a high income will feel that way.

      Perhaps taxing those high earners more is doing them a favour. Certainly it does society good.

      Not necessarily, for the reason I mentioned above.

      The most cohesive, low crime societies are those with the smallest earning gaps.

      What exactly does that mean, though?

      If we consider those at the other end of the spectrum, I personally don't believe anyone living in a supposedly civilised society in the 21st century should have to live below the poverty line, without shelter, a nutritious diet, decent healthcare and education, etc. I have no problem with the idea of a social security safety net, which I consider to be both the "right" thing to do and, as you point out, also worth doing as a matter of "enlightened self-interest" to avoid forcing people into criminal behaviour just to get the basics.

      But I also think that our current benefits culture here in the UK, where choosing to live off the state can be (as one government minister called it recently) a lifestyle choice, is far too generous. If you do too much for everyone, you remove the incentive for them to do things for themselves. Again, if we look at the facts, people with a job tend to do better in nearly all respects than those who do not, but we now have a situation where multiple generations of families have lived off benefits. Infamously, many of them actually get nicer houses and better cars and bigger TVs than those who do work for a living. That is just wrong to me, and hardly reflects the "earnings gap" between someone who has no income from work at all and someone who is working as, say, a nurse or teacher.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    172. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You have misrepresented my position: I do not claim that there should be no taxation. Indeed, I have argued elsewhere in this discussion that a sensible level of taxation seems to be the least of evils based on humanity's experience so far. I argue only that there should not be excessive taxation, where the government is taking people's money through a compulsory system but spending it on things that are clearly not essential or generally in the interests of society.

      Your characterisation of me personally is way off as well, but like any other ad hominem it is also irrelevant, so I won't bother debunking that.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    173. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'll go crawl back under my rock, taking my empirical data and logical argument with me. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    174. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information?

      Wrong question, I think. The legal situation is that this probably won't hold up as proof in a criminal court, but in a civil case you don't have to "prove beyond any reasonable doubt", you just have to make a more convincing case than your opponent. And perhaps more relevant, who say they will use the data to prove anything? Compare with the police: they use a lot of information in their investigations that can't be used in court, which is OK as long as it leads to evidence that will. So what HMRC will do is use these data to tell them where they should be looking for more tangible evidence.

      Does anybody have a "right" to use information obtained illegally? Well, it's information; you can't NOT know it if you've obtained it, and wilfully acting against your knowledge is wrong in every sense of the word. They have not only a right, but a duty to use what they know.

    175. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go suck a dick

    176. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by chrb · · Score: 1

      often do not make right, as the old saying points out. It's an interesting legal question, though: Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information?

      The position of the British government appears to be that receiving information illegally obtained elsewhere is legal under UK law: "In the meeting, Sir Michael Wood told me that it was not illegal for us to obtain intelligence from torture, provided someone else did the torture. " However, the House of Lords did rule that torture evidence can't be used in domestic proceedings.

      ("elsewhere" could be an interrogation room within the domestic borders of the U.S. or U.K. that is legally classified as Saudi/Uzbek/... soil due to embassy rights.)

      Applying this to tax evasion, it would appear that the stolen bank account details could not be directly used as evidence in a UK court, but could be used by an investigation team to locate new data through lawful methods, and that new data will be admissible in UK courts.

    177. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by chrb · · Score: 1

      And the same empty threat of rich people leaving if overtaxed applies here too.

      Indeed. It was hilarious to hear that Tracey Emin was going to leave Britain over the 50% tax rate, heading for the low tax destination of .... France?! Unfortunately, she never did.

    178. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's a strange complaint, because your US income tax bands range from 10% - 35%, whilst Italian income tax is 23% - 43%. At the Italian 43% rate, the US rate is only 28%.

      Obviously you aren't double taxed as Italy and the USA have a tax treaty. So how does it work to your detriment?

    179. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      This thread is one long facepalm full of fail. No lender is going to loan money to you to buy a house unless you have fire insurance which will of course include access to private fire fighters.

      What. The. Fuck. As if the poor folk didn't have a shitty enough time of it already, now they won't even get fire service.

      Oh wait. That's all libertarianism is. Making the rich richer, and the poor go fuck themselves.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    180. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      In most cases, the individual that you comment is not earning said money took a great personal risk to forge that company.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    181. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Agreed, that's in no way fair. But if you get a dual citizenship, what's to prevent you from ignoring the country that won't let go of you? "Pay your taxes!" "Uhm, no?"

      Sure, it will get you in a pretty bad standing with said country.

    182. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What. The. Fuck. As if the poor folk didn't have a shitty enough time of it already, now they won't even get fire service.

      So you're saying that people don't want to help the poor out of their own free will but people do want to vote for laws that force them to help the poor at gunpoint?

      That's idiotic. The fact that laws exist to help the poor PROVES that people want to help the poor and would do so even without the laws in place.

      Let me guess, you think the poor should have free everything? Then what incentive does anyone have to work? It sounds like you want to create a permanent welfare class.

    183. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you commit the crime with the assumption that the evidence would be used, (but without prior communication,) could the argument be made that you were working to serve the government? (or were planning to use that as part of the deal you make?)

      The only way to protect the system from abuse is to exclude ALL illegally obtained evidence.

    184. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      The position of the British government appears to be that receiving information illegally obtained elsewhere is legal under UK law

      It's law enforcement's rendition of money laundering.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    185. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Just hope your plane never gets diverted to a US airport, or you forget to check if it has a stop over in US territory.

      And who knows what bizarre tax treaty your country of choice will sign with the US next year.

    186. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      Because after all, no one ever becomes wealthy who isn't born into it. I think people like Robert Kiyosaki have pretty much proven that the lack of financial education (not just "school knowledge", although that's also important) is what keeps people from becoming financially independent.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    187. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because true democracy is only one step removed from anarchy. The USA is a republic with the objective of reducing the negative effects of mob rule.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    188. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, unless you actually leave the airport you're in international territory.

    189. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By keeping you mean not paying your fair share for the very society that you exploit for your own serf serving gains

      Straw man arguments are lies.

      Unless you are posting from a place with no government like Somalia, you are nothing but a spoiled four year old in a supposed adults body.

      False dichotomies are also lies.

    190. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by digitig · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the word "most" in my posting, or didn't understand what "personality and/or circumstances and/or luck" covers?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    191. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by alexo · · Score: 1

      If the police somehow obtains evidence illegaly (e.g. through burglary), that will be prosecuted separately.

      By whom?

    192. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Nope. You are on the territory of whatever country the airport is in. When's the last time you heard of someone just dropping their drugs in the bin in the transit lounge because "hey I'm in international territory you can't arrest me".

      See Davis Carruthers for an arrest of someone transiting though a US airport (flying from the UK to Costa Rica) resulting in 3 years of house arrest (restricted to a hotel) before being convicted and sentenced to 33 months prison - because while not in the US his company took some bets from US residents over the internet.

      Or Maher Ara who while transiting through the US traveling from Tunisia to Canada, who wasn't actually charged and arrested but just shipped off to Syria to be tortured because his name matched a watch list and he knew someone else on a watch list, but same principle.

    193. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Unless they all behave like that, as they do now. I don't know what the US insurance market is like, but the UK market is highly competitive with dozens of large and hundreds of small companies and yet they are always trying to avoid paying out where they can.

    194. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      Always good to get corrected and learn something new. I guess the only solution is to not travel through or near the offending country.

    195. Re:Two Wrongs. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Lets say there are 2 groups of people.

      Irrelevant. I didn't.

      One group produces a lot of items, goods, the other group spends a lot of money to buy those items and goods but it does not produce any goods for the first group to consume.

      Not what I meant and you know it.

      If the bread bakers don't buy any beer, the brewery workers will get the sack, and in turn they won't be able to buy bread.

      Now, if the second group stopped consuming, the first group would have to consume the goods it produced all by itself.

      Ugh! from what I've heard, bakers don't make very good beer.

      P.S. Writing shit in bold doesn't make it less shit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. That's quite the collection of arseholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Disclaimer: I'm American, arsehole just seems appropriate here.)

    I wonder who the Slashdot groupthink will come down in favor of?

    Personally I think the guy who stole the information is the biggest asshole, since he's violating people's privacy. Fuck him.

    Then again, the people evading taxes are assholes too. Well, a bit. It's the UK, evading some of those taxes is just sanity.

    And finally we have the people using stolen information. Fuck them for using illegally collected information. Of course, I know in the US it would be legal to use stolen information as long as the police didn't steal it. I can only pray that the UK is more enlightened than the US.

  5. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "In the HMRC case, a former staff member at HSBC's Swiss division stole highly sensitive data belonging to 15,000 high net-worth account holders earlier this year and fled to France.

    The list was passed to the French authorities, who in turn handed the relevant details to HMRC."

    Not to use the information would be a disservice to all UK taxpayers.

    The article also mistakenly treats tax avoidance and tax evasion as being synonymous.

  6. Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue? by nido · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that Governments should wield the power to make money, and politicians should debate about where to spend the newly created money.

    But as it is, in the UK, the United States, and elsewhere, banks create money, and decide who to loan it to. Governments have no other choice but to levy taxes on the economy.

    Like Colbert said in his testimony about migrant farm workers (8:54), the political game is all about power, and the biggest economic power of all is "who gets to create money first." Whatever happened to that bill to 'Audit the Federal Reserve" (which is owned by private member banks)? I haven't kept up... Whatever you think about the Fed, at least its profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury now.

    Richard C. Cook's Bailout for the People (pdf) has a really nice overview of an economic system that would work for the benefit of everyone...

    Some other sites:
    http://www.monetary.org/
    http://www.webofdebt.com/

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  7. That's Why... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...When it comes to a national government's size, scope, and powers, smaller & weaker is good. Yes, it makes it harder to get "free government stuff" (that you end up paying for over and over, but I digress). But, it's hard for anyone to be or use a jack-booted thug/enforcer if there is no government department to create a jack-booted-thug/enforcer division or pay the jack-booted thugs/enforcers, or give them lists of targets...err, "citizens" to do the whole "boot crushing a human face...forever" thing on.

    Just sayin'

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:That's Why... by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      Considering government bloat is the fastest way to hemorrhage money I agree. In Canada it take 4 people to pay for the job of 1 civil servant. It's probably around 6:1 in the US, government makes no money, it creates no money, all it does it take and spend another persons.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:That's Why... by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Canada it take 4 people to pay for the job of 1 civil servant. It's probably around 6:1 in the US

      Well I would certainly hope the government doesn't have a tax-rate of 100%, which would be necessary (in most cases) for 1 person to pay the salary for 1 civil servant...

      government makes no money, it creates no money, all it does it take and spend another persons.

      Government isn't supposed to "make money". It's supposed to provide the services we all need to survive, and aren't efficient to provide on an individual basis. I'd sure like safety, but I can't really afford my own private police force. International trade is nice, but I can't afford a navy. In so much as providing safety and stability CREATES MONEY, most governments do exactly that, with your taxes.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:That's Why... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      The trouble is of course that while you are right about government thuggery, if absent it is quickly replaced by wealth-based thuggery. There is no escape.

      All you get is to chose who the thugs will be: hereditary dynasties descended from wealthiest people (a.k.a. nobility) or somewhat-controllable (at least in theory) by the citizenry government pencil-pushers. Or a combination of these.

      There appears to be no other choices. All the libertarian utopias so far proposed have the common characteristics of being totally unstable and defenseless against self-accelerating accumulation of wealth and power and thus would rapidly devolve into various forms of feudalism if left to their own devices. In fact this is exactly what happened to all early human societies which had a much more socially flat structures and whose lack of central governance resembled closely the libertarian ethos.

      The root cause of the problem is of course the one plaguing humanity since times immemorial: the nastiest, greediest and most sociopathic individuals (or their progeny) seem to always raise into positions of power no matter what social or political system is in place. In some systems it takes them a little longer then in others, but the end results are the same. And the major accelerant is the size of the society in question, in a small group the power of the sociopaths is naturally limited by their ability to enforce their wishes, that limit is rapidly diminished as the size of the group grows, to the point that on a national (in case of governments) or pan-national (in case of mega-businesses) scale pretty much any atrocity can be committed with impunity.

    4. Re:That's Why... by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. Instead of an elected government creating the jack-booted thugs you have un-elected private corporations creating the jack-booted thugs. I can see how that is so much better.

      What, you think companies never employed their own mafia-esque type practices? You think companies, who's only goal is to make money, would never rape the public for their own personal good? You're either really naive or you haven't read up on history.

      --
      ~X~
    5. Re:That's Why... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well lets run with that. You have non-productive members of society, working in society, producing nothing except being a part of the bureaucracy. Which means that as unemployment creeps higher, fewer people exist to "pay" for that job.

      You however missed the point from the parent, so I'll let you go back and reread that. There's plenty of government services you don't need, which operate and you won't die if they didn't exist as well. AKA you don't need them to survive. Stability does create money, however when you have 4:1 ratios of individuals or less like in Europe where it's 2.8:1, due to bloat, you tell me what you gain except a lack of money at the end of the day, which you can in turn use to make the economy turn.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:That's Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your problem is with the members of the bureaucracy not engaging in productive and fruitful activity that is to the overall benefit of society...

      Fair enough, identify them, and we can see if there's agreement on the point.

      Don't give us bullshit that all the people employed by the government are non-productive.

      That's the real problem with this argument, you spend all your effort on attacking the mere concept of persons being employed by the government, you make this big grandiose idea that it's terrible, horrible, and yet...it's so obvious you're giving real thought into it.

    7. Re:That's Why... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You have non-productive members of society, working in society, producing nothing except being a part of the bureaucracy.

      While some of their time may be wasted by the bureaucracy they work under, they're most certainly not "non-productive". Maybe they aren't as productive as the same number of people in private business, but they are still definitely productive.

      There's plenty of government services you don't need, which operate and you won't die if they didn't exist as well.

      Name them. Cut the BS and let's get to the meat of the matter.

      I'm betting that:
        A) Anything you list will be some service that, by and large, people want (or need) the government to do.
        B) Constitutes only a tiny expense. and
        C) Constitutes only a trivial fraction of all government jobs.

      however when you have 4:1 ratios of individuals or less like in Europe where it's 2.8:1, due to bloat, you tell me what you gain except a lack of money at the end of the day, which you can in turn use to make the economy turn.

      The ratio of government jobs to private jobs doesn't prove, anything. Compared to the US, all other 1st world-countries are a bit more socialistic, so ALL HEALTHCARE POSITIONS ARE GOVERNMENT JOBS. No-one is going to say healthcare is unnecessary or non-productive. And every study done has shown a single-payer system is more efficient than a private system.

      So, I've just shown that having more "government" jobs can be CHEAPER and MORE EFFICIENT. There are thousands of other examples, including all public infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, communications, etc.), and security forces (police, military).

      So, I've now "told you" what they are good for. Your turn to stop the blanket accusations and get to verifiable facts. NAME SOME WASTE. Since you've been wrong every time you've opened your mouth so far, we'll have to see if the examples you give can be so easily shot-down as well...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:That's Why... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You're right. Instead of an elected government creating the jack-booted thugs you have un-elected private corporations creating the jack-booted thugs. I can see how that is so much better.

      So, if you were tasked with making government smaller, you'd be sure to cut things like the Justice Department and FBI that would keep corporations in line and obeying the law, thus preventing what you describe? That makes no sense.

      You make it sound like no matter what, there *must* be jack-booted thugs. Although you don't actually make that claim, I will state that I reject that concept. Part of making government smaller means fewer avenues for corporations to buy influence and less reason to do so, as, if there is no government department to do 'X' that favors a corporation, then naturally the corporation doesn't try, so resulting in less corruption. Less corruption means more-even and fair application of law, the creation of new law, and how it's applied to corporations as well as individuals.

      Keep in mind also that corporations do not have the ability to use force. They don't have law enforcement divisions nor armies. The government has a monopoly on the use of force. The government is capable of imprisoning or killing you. A corporation is not. It is possible to arrange & organize one's government so as to maximize individual protections as well as guard against abuses by corporations and other private interests while keeping the government "lean & mean".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:That's Why... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Government isn't supposed to "make money". It's supposed to provide the services we all need to survive, and aren't efficient to provide on an individual basis.

      Government removes money and capital from the private sector making it unavailable or more expensive for the guy running the dry-cleaners down the street to get loans and capital investment so that he might expand his operations and hire more people. It's more accurate to say that government doesn't create wealth or jobs, the private sector does. The larger government is, the less capital & credit there is available for the private sector to create wealth & jobs.

      If government restricted itself to providing essential and necessary functions & services, you'd have a point. There are many huge money-gobbling bureaucracies that do not need to exist. The IRS for one, if some form of flat-tax, fair-tax, or other form were enacted and income tax eliminated. And talk about "jack-booted thugs"! The IRS certainly qualifies.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:That's Why... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like no matter what, there *must* be jack-booted thugs

      Because there always has been and there always will be. Believing otherwise shows a naivety of human nature. As long as greed and lust for power remain part of humanity, thuggery will eventually rear it's ugly head. Just because it isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't happening.

      Although you don't actually make that claim, I will state that I reject that concept.

      One needs to look no further than many of the second and third world countries. Even in first world countries you hear about greed and corruption.

      Remove all aspects of the government where companies and/or individuals cannot buy favors or influence then you have no government.

      if there is no government department to do 'X' that favors a corporation, then naturally the corporation doesn't try, so resulting in less corruption

      No, naturally the corporation will work to further it's end goal of power of profit, regardless of whether or not their is a government agency to help them do so. They will either go through the government or go through private channels. Regardless of the methods, the end results are the same.

      Keep in mind also that corporations do not have the ability to use force. They don't have law enforcement divisions nor armies.

      The only thing preventing them from doing so IS the strong government. Without government to enforce such regulations, you can be damned sure that they would. Look up the Pinkertons.

      The government has a monopoly on the use of force. The government is capable of imprisoning or killing you. A corporation is not.

      Must be nice living in free-market land. However, in reality, any entity with the money and will can effectively disappear you. It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

      Also, corporations have been polluting and killing for decades, if not here than in other countries where laws are a bit more lax. Killing people doesn't always mean shooting them in the face with a gun.

      It is possible to arrange & organize one's government so as to maximize individual protections as well as guard against abuses by corporations and other private interests while keeping the government "lean & mean".

      Oh I'm sure there is. But not the way you describe.

      --
      ~X~
    11. Re:That's Why... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Because there always has been and there always will be. Believing otherwise shows a naivety of human nature. As long as greed and lust for power remain part of humanity, thuggery will eventually rear it's ugly head. Just because it isn't obvious doesn't mean it isn't happening.

      So you would prefer your thuggery occur under the color of authority with the force of government behind it.

      No, naturally the corporation will work to further it's end goal of power of profit, regardless of whether or not their is a government agency to help them do so. They will either go through the government or go through private channels. Regardless of the methods, the end results are the same.

      The results are NOT the same. Thuggery by private entities may be battled in the legal system. Armed thuggery can be battled by police and by the individuals involved through self defense on one's own property. If some corporate goons break down my door, they won't ever be going home. If the police break down my door I have few options...all bad. Thuggery perpetrated by the government has little recourse.

      Must be nice living in free-market land. However, in reality, any entity with the money and will can effectively disappear you. It has happened, and it will continue to happen.

      Yeah, I hear all the time about Walmart, Microsoft, and IBM "disappearing" citizens who protest and speak out against them. The government is the one that does the "disappearing" thing.

      Also, corporations have been polluting and killing for decades, if not here than in other countries where laws are a bit more lax. Killing people doesn't always mean shooting them in the face with a gun.

      Again, you conflate reducing the size of government with eliminating necessary & essential functions to protect the citizens. This is akin to the tactic that politicians have been using' "If you cut our state budget, the first thing we'll cut is firemen and police." instead of cutting other areas not essential.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:That's Why... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Some time wasted under bureaucracy. Okay, a person goes off to get hired at a job, the employer who's the government says you need to have a medical clear. The doctors, and specialists say there's nothing wrong, aokay. The doctor fails to pass the person. The people who can review the said case, meet twice a year. Once in the spring and once in the fall. 6mo isn't a long time, or anything.

      I can name just about any subsidizing program in existence as it stands. So lets go with healthcare, in Canada the bureaucracy for 'healthcare' is about 40c/dollar is spent at the administrative level. Google and the cbc are over there.

      You haven't shown anything. The only time where the government is efficient in providing services is when private corporations won't. However everyone picks up the tab for it. Such as the $27m/year to run 150km of rail line in northern ontario to a small town(which was only costing CN ~3.8m/year) but they cut it as a non-essential link to their service. Or the massively subsidized telephone services out west, again because no one until recently wanted to get into it.

      And I've just told you a bunch of things where the government happily wastes money. And let me give you some advice, I haven't been wrong once. But you're happily believing that the world of government services is 'cheap' and 'inexpensive'.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:That's Why... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I can name just about any subsidizing program in existence as it stands.

      But you still haven't named one... So I'd say, maybe you can't.

      in Canada the bureaucracy for 'healthcare' is about 40c/dollar is spent at the administrative level.

      I don't buy that for a second. What statistic did you butcher to come up with that fake number?

      Let's try a real study:

      In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent;

      Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada
      Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
      N Engl J Med 2003; 349:768-775 August 21, 2003

      Such as the $27m/year to run 150km of rail line in northern ontario to a small town

      Some reason you can't say the name of the small town, or cite your source for all this? Are you just hoping no-one will check on your ridiculous claims?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  8. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    Yes of course I know this. But knowingly receiving stolen property is also a crime. At least where I reside :)

  9. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by johanatan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But, information wants to be free!

  10. TAAAXMAAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Guitar Riff

  11. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by davester666 · · Score: 1

    and by 'passed' they mean 'sold'...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  12. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 4, Informative

    criminal evidence is not considered legitimate property and can be seized by the government at any time.

  13. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not "stolen" according to the definition in the Theft Act, so it's not receiving stolen property.

  14. Wrong by Framboise · · Score: 1

    It's wrong to start buying stolen data even for tax evasion, because this
    kind of business can easily extend to other domains. For the "good" cause
    governments justify now to finance data stealing in other countries, but
    the day these same governments are themselves victims of such practices
    they will for sure find it illegal..

  15. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Holy shit, you're a nutjob.

  16. Cool! by ebonum · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This means that evidence gathered illegally is admissible!
    Get a confession by torture. No problem.
    Illegal wire tap? This never was much of a problem in the US.
    Taking pictures of police engaging in illegal activity where photography is banned. The judge won't throw out the evidence.

    1. Re:Cool! by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      This means that evidence gathered illegally is admissible!
      Get a confession by torture. No problem.
      Illegal wire tap? This never was much of a problem in the US.
      Taking pictures of police engaging in illegal activity where photography is banned. The judge won't throw out the evidence.

      Imagine the police apprehend a burglar climbing out of the window of Dr Evil.

      He has in his swag bag the Koh-i-Noor diamond, recently stolen from the British Crown Jewels.

      Are you suggesting that the police shouldn't investigate the possibility that Dr Evil stole the diamond in the first place?

      Should they just say:

      "Damn. There's nothing we can do. The evidence was gathered by illegal means."

      I think not.

    2. Re:Cool! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This means that evidence gathered illegally is admissible!

      How? Information about where the stolen taxmoney is located isn't really evidence of tax evasion. Actual evidence of tax evasion would be the actual offshore account itself. At worst this should be viewed as a breach of privacy.

      Get a confession by torture. No problem.

      Not the same thing. Let's say you torture a guy to find the money, he'll say anything, but if he doesn't actually have the money, all you'll get is lots of useless information about where it isn't. Which won't help you find the actual money, since the guy doesn't know.

      Illegal wire tap? This never was much of a problem in the US.

      Depends whether the taped phone conversation itself is being offered as evidence of wrongdoing, or whether the information is used to find the actual money offshore, and then that offshore account is used directly as evidence of tax evasion.

      Taking pictures of police engaging in illegal activity where photography is banned. The judge won't throw out the evidence.

      Don't know what this has to do with tax evasion.

    3. Re:Cool! by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      I know your post was sacastic, but see Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969).

      In Mapp and Weeks, the defendant against whom the evidence was held to be inadmissible was the victim of the search. However, in the cases before us each petitioner demands retrial if any of the evidence used to convict him was the product of unauthorized surveillance, regardless of whose Fourth Amendment rights the surveillance violated. At the very least, it is urged that if evidence is inadmissible against one defendant or conspirator, because tainted by electronic surveillance illegal as to him, it is also inadmissible against his codefendant or coconspirator.

      This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment and of the exclusionary rule fashioned to enforce it is admittedly inconsistent with prior cases, and we reject it. The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    4. Re:Cool! by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      This means that evidence gathered illegally is admissible!
      [...]
      Taking pictures of police engaging in illegal activity where photography is banned. The judge won't throw out the evidence.

      I am in doubt. Would the correct moderation of your posting be "-1 Obviously naive" or "+1 Apparently naive"?

    5. Re:Cool! by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This means that evidence gathered illegally is admissible!

      No one has been arrested or prosecuted based on this information, nor will they be. What this information does is separate those who are evading their taxes, versus those who are not. That makes large-scale investigation vastly easier by directing you at targets. I'm willing to bet the authorities can prove tax evasion by everyone involved without actually using the leaked HSBC information in court...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Cool! by ebonum · · Score: 1

      This should be obvious. There is a general principal that evidence must be gathered according to a long list of rules. The rules are there to protect the people from their government. There are a lot of criminals who walk free in the US every year because the police and/or the district attorney made a mistake. That is why you pay a lot of money for a good lawyer when you are in trouble. Any mistakes that the lawyer finds will ALWAYS work to the defendant's favor. By allowing an exception for this situation, a precedent is being set for making exceptions. The next time the government wants go after someone without following the rules, the government can cite the "bank data" as a precedent for bending the rules and ask for another exception.

      Do we want a government based on the general principle that: The ends ( busting tax evaders ) justify the means ( illegal gathering of evidence )?

      A slightly different issue is: Should the UK government be encouraging, and in some cases paying, people in Switzerland to break the laws of the Swiss?

    7. Re:Cool! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      but I understand that supression of evidence is only available if the illegal evidence is directly obtained by the government. ie. if a cop breaks into your house and finds your stash, its not admissible (as the cop did something wrong - personally, I think prosecute the cop and let the evidence stand, but that's a different matter).

      If a private individual breaks into your house, finds your stash and tells the cops - its no problem to use that evidence in court.

    8. Re:Cool! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      In all cases its down to whether the government directly violated your rights to obtain the information. If they paid for these accounts to be stolen, then they're inadmissible. If they sent Bond to get them, inadmissible.

      If someone steals them anyway, then offers them to the government - either for free, or for cash - then that's fine. You might want to prosecute the burglar, but that's not part of this discussion.

      Quite often the government does advertise for information - they pay rewards for information leading to prosecution all the time, they pay informants. If you know someone cheating on benefits or tax dodging, there's a reward waiting for you too.

    9. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, in that example the information (that Dr. Evil had a diamond illegally) was gathered legally. The police didn't commit a crime to cause the information to come out, a 3rd party did. A 3rd party that the police are legally investigating as part of their job.

    10. Re:Cool! by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      The police didn't commit a crime to cause the information to come out, a 3rd party did.

      Exactly the same case as in the FA.

    11. Re:Cool! by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      >> if a cop breaks into your house and finds your stash, its not admissible

      Not quite, the evidence would be inadmissible against anyone who's fourth amendment rights had not been violated. For example if your stash was labeled "purchased from Brandon Yoder" with his address included, it could then be used as evidence in court against him. The issue here is Brandon would have no reasonable expectation of privacy (legally) in your home, thus no forth amendment violation (against him). I will cite an earlier section in the same case I previously mentioned.

      1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
  17. You can get in on the action, turn someone in!!! by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The IRS has a blog about this, and you can report some one. http://irsmostwanted.blogspot.com/2010/07/hsbc-clients-with-asian-accounts-said.html

    This is similar to the recent IRS action against USB, the big Swiss based bank. USB was actively involved in smuggling assets out of the US, including telling people how to get diamonds and then putting them in toothpaste tubes to get around customs. http://gswlaw.com/irsblog/2009/08/31/ubs-whistle-blower-gets-40-month-sentence/

    These tax cheats are scum sucking pigs. The high end ones have huge amounts of money and they still cheat. Can you afford to buy diamonds to smuggle out of the country? Remember, people with six figure incomes pay less then the rest of us because they get taxed at capital gains rates, which can be as low as 15%. Real working people pay around %30 or more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States

    When these greedheads duck out on taxes, the rest of us have to pay a lot more. This is on top of all the custom tax breaks that big corrupt corporate players have put in the law by buying legislation. The ballooning deficit in the US is due to tax cuts for the ultra rich, not because taxes are too high for the remaining 99% of the population. The right wingers who say otherwise are lying weasels, and if you believe them then you are weak minded and like having your pocket picked by the rich.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  18. Work at a bank in HK, want to get rich? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    Western governments will pay you millions to steal your employer's data!!!

  19. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Holy shit you're a rim job.

    Shut the fuck up unless you actually want to argue against what he said. Seriously, slashdot, stay classy.

  20. Stolen? by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this was about any other data, like mp3, it would be called a copyright infringement.
    If this would be data that the government was hiding, it would be called "Freedom of information".

    Don't forget that the tax evaders willingly committed fraud.

    I understand that people do not like paying taxes, but that does not mean it is OK to use illegal ways to go about it. These will be big accounts. And if they did everything honestly, there should be nothing to worry about as the tax men already have the information.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Stolen? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Funny

      If this was about any other data, like mp3, it would be called a copyright infringement.

      Not quite. Since the information in question is not any kind of creative work (apart from possibly creative bookkeeping) but merely a collection of facts, it is not copyrightable in most countries, and definitely not in the EU.

      Now, is it bad that a banker is copying what is expected to be confidential information and selling it to outside parties? Certainly. But that does not make it copyright infringement.

    2. Re:Stolen? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thank you for your morality lessons. What would we have done without them? We would just not be paying taxes as we wouldn't have thought of all that. Thank you again.

      However, the morality of the tax avoidance was not the issue here.

      The issue here was the goverment was using a stolen list. The bad morality of the tax avoidance is a given. Let's say it wasn't a list, but the goverment got the details by torture. That would clearly cross a line. Back to the list. What crosses the line?

    3. Re:Stolen? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Back to the list. What crosses the line?

      So the authorities should disregard information from whistleblowers?

    4. Re:Stolen? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      If this was about any other data, like mp3, it would be called a copyright infringement.

      I understood the headline to mean he stole a physical piece/stack of paper with the details printed on it. So it really was theft. I agree, if it were merely information, then unelss he was an idiot and deleted it from the bank's system, then he merely made a copy.

    5. Re:Stolen? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      It might depend on how the information was taken from the bank. If the data was on discs of some sort then it may be that the individual stole the data - but yes, information cannot be stolen in the UK.

      Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other laws that could be used - breach of confidence, data protection etc (copyright doesn't apply to facts and data).

  21. Pot, Kettle... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It's hard to hide legally earned money from the government so the money in the accounts is probably less then clean itself.

    What goes around comes around.

    --
    No sig today...
  22. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by a_claudiu · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not stolen, it's worse, it's an illegal copy. Swiss bank should sue french and english governments for "pirating" their data and ask for 10 times more the amount of taxes and fines collected from the taxes + a ridiculos amount for lost sales/customers.

  23. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by Eudial · · Score: 1

    The government doesn't steal, it expropriates.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  24. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Informative

    But as it is, in the UK, the United States, and elsewhere, banks create money, and decide who to loan it to. Governments have no other choice but to levy taxes on the economy.

    Governments have "no other choice" than taxes? Governments control fiscal and monetary policy. They directly control how much banks can lend, and manage the effects of that lending. Some examples:

    • Governments can set reserve requirements - a minimum amount that banks must keep in their vaults. You can't loan out money that you're required to sit on; this reduces the money supply and increases interest rates.
    • Governments directly increase the money supply by printing currency. This lowers interest rates in the short run.
    • Governments can increase or decrease the money supply by buying or selling in the securities market, affecting interest rates appropriately.

    Notice how none of the above involve taxation.

    Whatever happened to that bill to 'Audit the Federal Reserve" (which is owned by private member banks)?

    The Federal Reserve is not "owned" by member banks. Its board of governors is appointed by the President. Seven of them sit on the FOMC with five representatives of private banks. The bill to "audit" the Fed died because it was a bad idea.

    Whatever you think about the Fed, at least its profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury now.

    The Federal Reserve controls the amount of money in circulation by buying and selling government debt. By selling treasury bonds, the Fed takes money from their purchasers in exchange. The Fed sits on that money, effectively taking it out of circulation, and increasing interest rates.

    The opposite action is buying government debt. Money the Fed was sitting on is now in circulation, increasing the money supply and lowering interest rates. The money swapped back and forth isn't "profit", and any in excess of what's needed to control interest rates has always been remitted to the treasury.

    As for any calls to "reform" the financial system, I prefer my crackpots more in the vein of Dr. Ron Paul, as opposed to some guy with a Wordpress blog. YMMV.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  25. The story of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very long. (tl;dr)

    The Alchemist who turned lead into gold

    Long ago in the country of Outland there was a tiny village named Trope. In a small hovel at the edge of the village, lived an old Alchemist, who was working busily on his quest to turn lead into gold. It would have been any typical summer day in Trope except for one thing. On this day, the Alchemist had a stroke of luck, which would change the lives of everyone in Trope for ever.

    A smile slowly proceeded across the Alchemist's crumpled face as he slowly poured the last ingredient into the vat of molten metal, lovingly stirring the concoction with a long heavy ladle. "Perfect" he said to himself as he began pouring the thick mixture from the ladle into the molds. "I've done it! I have finally discovered the secret of turning lead into gold. I shall become the wealthiest man to ever live".

    Over the years while he obsessively worked on his project to turn lead into gold, the old Alchemist had experienced much trial and error; he used this time to construct a most cunning plan. He had day dreamed for many years of what he would do, if only he could turn lead into gold.

    In those days, gold was used for ornamental purposes, for things such as bracelets and earrings. With this in mind, the old Alchemist reasoned to himself, that after he had produced a significant quantity of gold, one day everyone in Outland would have all the gold they could ever want. He deduced that if that day were to ever arrive, the desire for gold would diminish and its value fade away. This worried him immensely, for his ultimate fear was for gold to become as common as the lead from which it was made.

    The Alchemist thought to himself, "I must keep my secret recipe in my head and never reveal it to any other person, and I must manufacture my gold in limited quantities only, that it may always be desirable." The medieval chemist, being a greedy man, was not happy with limiting the amount of gold, he could create. "I must discover a new use for my gold that will make it desirable to everyone, no matter how much I produce. I know there must be a way." he thought to himself. "There must be a way."

    One day a brilliant idea burst into his head. "That's it!" His grin blossoming into an exuberant smile, revealing the total absence of teeth. "I shall make my gold into little round ingots, and I will call them coyens." This in Outlandish means token. "Then I will loan my coyens to the villagers for use as munee." This means wage in Outlandish. "I will convince the villagers to use my gold coyens as munee for their trade. My gold will then be in constant demand, no matter how much I produce. I will indeed become wealthy beyond belief!"

    "But what is this munee?" The Baker asked gruffly, as he suspiciously eyed the Alchemist, his head thoughtfully cocked to one side while contemplated this strange new concept. The Baker was known to be the wisest man in the village. With that in mind, the Alchemist needed the Baker's support for his new plan, or had little hope the villagers would ever accept it. The sensible Baker though, was having quite a difficult time comprehending this new idea. His village had always used the bartering system of trade. If a villager needed bread, he would work for the Baker, or he would make a trade using an item that was desired by the Baker, such as wheat, or perhaps candlesticks in return for bread. All trade was a matter of negotiating a swap that was acceptable to both parties.

    "Munee works like magic." Whispered the wide eyed Alchemist, as he moved closer. "It allows you to trade coyens for merchandise, instead of trading your wares for their wares, or working directly for the person who possesses the Item you need. As a matter of fact, you can work for anyone you wish, and then you can take the munee you've earned and trade it for the things you want. Because my gold is so valuable, one coyen is adequate compensation for an entire day's work. It will be gladly accepted by all"

    "Hmmm" Said the baker. "I must admit,

  26. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by dintech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, yes, 'stolen'. This kind of thing smells more of backroom dodgy dealing between HSBC and the UK government. It gives HSBC plausible deniability but the government gets them to comply with what they've been asking for all this time.

  27. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by hitmark · · Score: 1

    One interesting form of money supply control i read about involved the government basically spending the money into existence, and then taxing it out of existence. So when there is not enough money in circulation the government would put it into existence by building roads and such. And when there is too much, they would raise taxes.

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  28. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by Peeteriz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not an illegal copy, as all copyright laws and treaties allow making copies for court purposes without needing permission from the author.
    And in any case, it would be perfectly possible for these governments to pass a special law about usage of such data, stating whatever usage rules they like.

  29. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by shentino · · Score: 1

    The stolen information was confiscated by the authorities.

    It's just that they uncovered evidence of other crimes while they were busting for data theft.

  30. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1
    In theory the government could just make money from nothing. It is a fiat currency. In practice, this is a Very Bad Idea. Putting so much money into circulation lowers the value of the money that is already there. When it hits some threshold the process turns into a positive feedback loop. It's called hyperinflation.

    Basically, look at these photos: http://moneytipcentral.com/inflation-in-america-what-will-hyperinflation-look-like

    Taxes are never popular. If there was a way to do without them, governments would be using that already.

  31. DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly some DRM should be implemented in our bank data to protect our rights!

  32. Re:You can get in on the action, turn someone in!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad the cheats may be roasted.
    You can bank on the fact there will be other bank leaks, so don't trust your accountant.

    In Australia, their tax office does deals so some only have to pay a fraction than if it was played down to the wire.
    It's widely supported tucking a bit of cash away so that in divorvce/criminal cases, you can outspend the other party.

    They are also lucky for not doing time for money laundering.

  33. Re:It's not hidden by Peil · · Score: 1

    Not sure your statement about the BoE buying Gilts is true, given the UK is outwith the Eurozone.

    Could you please cite your information, given the whole Quantative Easing scenario is based on using new money to buy Gilts.

  34. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 1

    It has been done recently (it's called quantative easing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing). You have to be careful about it though and do it with the support of the market or every currency trader on the planet will short the hell out of your currency pushing the value of it down to sod all whilst making an absolute killing for themselves.

    --
    "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
  35. Germany went one farther... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    A year or two ago, they actually purchased stolen bank data, and then helped the thief go into hiding. As far as I can see, there is every reason to charge the officials involved with trafficking in stolen goods.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Germany went one farther... by Alok · · Score: 1

      Who's going to charge them - the crooks who stashed their money in the banks, or the bank officials who were happily profiting off this activity?

      Its amusing (and a bit sad) to see all these comments of outrage on stolen data being used, but very little on how this helped tax evasion / bribes / money laundering etc. be detected & prosecuted.

  36. Not a first by Leon+Buijs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has happend before with bank data from Germans at a foreign bank that were stolen by an employe and then sold to the German authorities. There was a lot of discussion but in the end the German gouvermant DID use the data. Again, the same thing is about to happen in the Netherlands, with data from banks in other parts of Europe. The Dutch tax department offers offenders a 'inkeerregeling': If you turn in the illegal foreign savings, you get a much lower fine than if you take your chances and wait for them to find them. If they ever will because it's not sure if this evidence will hold in Dutch court. This inkeerregeling has turned out to be very successful so far

  37. Swiss response? by genican1 · · Score: 1

    Do the Swiss have a state security service? Because this is the type of thing I could see getting "taken care of" with a bullet or two!

  38. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by lxs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes it does. But to carry the analogy further, information is our servant and not our master. There is no need to honour the wish of a personified concept.

  39. Re:It's not hidden by abhikhurana · · Score: 1

    The most significant benefit of UK being part of EU but not Euro is that its bank can act independently of the European Central Bank (ECB) and it can devalue its currency when it so needs. So yes, UK did print extra money, which was used to buy Gilts, thus pumping extra money in the economy, but since UK is not part of Euro zone, there is nothing in the Maastricht treaty that prevents UK from doing so (similarly for Switzerland, Sweden etc.)

    Of course in the long run, the government has to buy back the gilts from the BOE so it is a zero sum game. However, I think the biggest blunder of the EU was Euro, thereby depriving states like Greece any control on their currency and thus landing in situations where they need to be bailed out by other countries.

  40. Re:You can get in on the action, turn someone in!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm - I'd look at all the money Obama has wasted in his 2 years, compare the current deficit to all the previous ones, and will beg to differ.

  41. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Urkki · · Score: 1

    a really nice overview of an economic system that would work for the benefit of everyone...

    Like some other economic systems that would work for the benefit of everyone, I bet that one has the same fatal flaw: it fails to account for basic human nature. Persons are smart, except those persons that are not, but people are always stupid.

    Also, a warning sign of all kinds of crack-pottery is claiming that something untested would work and solve some hard, perhaps even impossible problem in a simple manner. They all fail from the same reason: replacing harsh reality with wishful thinking of some kind.

  42. Re:You can get in on the action, turn someone in!! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    These tax breaks are not only available to the rich. Anyone can take advantage of them. I'm just a working stiff, yet the income I make on my savings is either tax advantaged via 401K or Roth accounts or is in the form of dividends or capital gains that are taxed at 15%. This is going to make a huge difference to me in about 5 years when I retire.

    Now I do agree with you that the current tax policy is broken and it really should be more progressive. Among other things it has allowed for an excessive concentration of wealth in the top most affluent percentage of society at the expense of ridiculous levels of government debt.

  43. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

    10 times? The going rate for copyright infringement is a few thousand times the value of the information. The British government isn't some college student you know, they actually might have that kind of money.

  44. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps than it is time to offer a reward for information leading to the prosecution of major tax cheats, perhaps a 10% commission on tax and penalties recovered upon succesful prosecution.

    The ideal retirement package for tax haven executives. Sick of counting other peoples crooked millions when your only getting thousands, have various tax agencies around the world got an offer for you. Hand over the evidence to roast a thousand multi-millionaire tax cheats and you could become a multi-millionaire yourself. Now what typical bean counting corporate executive wouldn't leap at that.

    It might be a crime to create a copy of the data but it is also a crime to facilitate tax evasion, launder the proceeds of crime, manage illegal arms deals, make possible the theft of a countries capital assets by corrupt political leaders and generally run a countries finances by supporting the financial management of crimes in other countries.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  45. Not true by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if one person's work and effort (result is riches) then no one's work or effort is worth defending.

    Besides, all those big names we see (soros, gates, jobs, murdoch) and such are not affected by income taxes. Yet people love to soak the evil rich and instead his the working rich, those who go to very good paying jobs they got through investment in school and work. It also soaks many multi employee small businessmen.

    Purchasing should be taxed, not income. The evil rich can very much pay for society by taxing the spending of all. Taxing income is simply the best way to hide the burden the state puts on people as a whole. With the subtle deceit of having the taxes paid before the employee sees his check he does not have the same connection as the small businessman when it comes to just how much tax is out there.

    So, yeah I will defend the working rich, the small businessman, the doctor, the broker, and such. Those in the range of 150 to 500k should not bear the brunt of a society which is more and more turning into lazy gimme children.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  46. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    Obama struck down that "Audit the Fed Reserve" bill. He did this because he KNOWS if the Fed Reserve was ever audited some really damning information would get out and there would be a revolution. You would find out who the wealthy collaborators are that pretty much control the worlds money (and hence the world). I don't believe in the "illuminati", but I know that the super rich of the world are working more or less together to keep their money and make more.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  47. It is in Switzerland by DrYak · · Score: 1

    It's not an illegal copy, as all copyright laws and treaties allow making copies for court purposes

    It could be an illegal copy. In Switzerland, bank secrecy is protected by law, and such information can't be just copied like this without going through a complex procedure, and first doing an internal audit.

    Luckily for the thief, the theft happened in HSBC and not in Switzerland.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:It is in Switzerland by migloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Luckily for the thief, the theft happened in HSBC and not in Switzerland.

      The theft happened in HSBC-Geneva. And Geneva is still in Switzerland.

      The thief, Hervé Falciani, openly escaped to France.

      The french minister Eric Woerth who used the list is guilty of concealment according to swiss law and faces arrest if he travels there even on official business.

    2. Re:It is in Switzerland by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Delusional much? Diplomatic immunity has fairly nebulous coverage, and it is an unlikely... nay, non-existent... possibility that such an arrest would occur.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  48. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I'll make it *very simple*.

    1. Central banks "create" money supply, and that money is spent by the government on services. You know, pay wages for road construction, police, army, etc...

    2. Taxes "destroy" the money supply. The purpose of this is to keep the money supply in check to prevent *inflation*.

    The central banks control the money supply so that $1 today is worth just a tiny bit less than $1 tomorrow. On average, they want $1 today being about $1.02 next year. This allows people to save, yet prevents hoarding of cash by making its buying power disappear. Money is only government backed IOU notes that slowly fade in value. You need to buy stuff with it (food, investments like company shares, hard assets like gold, copper, iron ore, etc...) or it depreciates. You can't keep IOU notes from Roman Empire times and live off of them now, can you? (but with gold, you could, hence why gold-backed currency was an EPIC fail and why that practice was stopped)

    Without taxes, central banks cannot control the rate of depreciation. Heck, money would depreciate much quicker than it does today, closer to 30% annual inflation for the US today. This would kill all savers, make mortgages very expensive (because of uncertainty in the interest rates).

    Taxes are all about MONEY SUPPLY. You can pick one scenario,
      1. No taxes == maximal increase in money supply == hyperinflation.
      2. No taxes == no government (so no increase in money supply) == no services == no currency (eg. Somalia).
      3. Create more money than the market can absorb (via taxes or growth of the economy, etc.) == inflation == Zimbabwe == worthless currency. (Zimbabwe needed to *cut* the money supply by increasing taxes and cutting services, yet they didn't and the result was much worse -- worthless currency)

    Pick one scenario.

    Money supply needs to reflect the size of the economy, more or less. The the US case, money supply can be quite larger thanks to external "savers" (reserve currency, currency of oil, etc.).

  49. Thieves by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    Thieves working with thieves. What a surprise there.

  50. Re:You can get in on the action, turn someone in!! by jareds · · Score: 1

    Remember, people with six figure incomes pay less then the rest of us because they get taxed at capital gains rates, which can be as low as 15%. Real working people pay around %30 or more.

    Six figures? What is this, the 1970s? Of course, the bulk of income earned by people making six figures is taxed at ordinary income tax rates: wages, self-employment income, etc. Intuitively, you have far, far more people with six figure incomes from employment than retired and drawing six figures from investments, or young people drawing six figures from trust funds; and also six figures is way below point of things like hedge fund managers arranging things such that most of their income is in the form of capital gains.

    Here is data from the IRS on sources of income classified by AGI. I selected 2006 so you can't say that capital gains are low due to the recession, which started in 2007. As you can see, for the 12 million returns with AGI from $100K to $200K, 3.6% of the income was from qualified dividends and net long-term capital gains. For the 3 million returns from $200K to $500K, it was 8.1%, for the 600 thousand from $500K to $1M, it was 12.0%. A large majority of "six figure income" people hardly have any income taxed at the special 15% rate. Obviously you are correct that someone making a large portion of their income in capital gains and dividends will pay a lower tax rate than many people making their money from wages, but overall it is not until well into the seven figures that the average effective tax rate starts going down.

  51. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by ultranova · · Score: 1

    If the government somehow steals something, it's alright!

    Nothing was stolen here. Some information was copied without authorization. And it was done by a private person.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  52. Where do you live, Afghanistan or Africa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, let's take away the roads, the electric utility subsidies, the OIL THAT RUNS YOUR CAR and is subsidized by WAR, the police that keep the neighbors from stealing your shit when you leave the house, and see how many of those dollars you earn...

    Moron.

    Roads are cleared by the tools of farmers over fairer terrain, plowed and shapen by, maintained by locals for as an enticement to encourage unhindered travel to their regions to spend money; paved roads are the monopoly of a foreign principal enacting his robber-Baron mentality that everyone owes him money by his coercing the service of Paving over public roads to facilitate poorly-made chassis that can't negotiate dimpled moguled public roads: roads are public, while streets are private. What is war to achieve that the courts and liening procedures have already remedied to satsify judgements; if someone doesn't pay a debt coerced onto them in America, then the government declares war on them for not paying the service or are you free to dispense remedy and avoid liability only in the 1800's? Neighbors aren't policed, and someone that steals my property is not my neighbor but an investor seeking to implicitly buy my property to make more efficient use of it elsewhere than where it was found.

    Slut for money!!

  53. Re:You can get in on the action, turn someone in!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, people with six figure incomes pay less then the rest of us because they get taxed at capital gains rates, which can be as low as 15%. Real working people pay around %30 or more.

    While I totally agree with you that cheating on taxes is scum, don't lump together high-earners with tax cheats. People with 6-figure salaries pay income tax like everyone else--often above 30% just for federal taxes. (In fact the rich pay the majority of taxes in the US...) The 15% (which will likely soon be going up) applies to capital gains, which is a type of investment income. You can't make the investment in the first place unless you've already earned the money.

  54. That's lack of infrastructure, and greed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason they are in squallor is the previous government chased-out or destroyed much of their previous industrialists. It's a sadistic process, but what you is in Liberia and Sudan is nothing more than the people going through their pains of redevelopment: they are policing theirselves, governing theirselves, and when you see Islam and Western governments enter the region then you will deprive them of the (R)evolution that would bring their societies into the same capacity of U.S. Government and Hamas. Likewise it took a thousand years of oppressive rule by the Catholic Church across Europe to splinter that corner into self-sufficient politic to repel the Inquisition against smaller denominations of Church-States.

  55. Government that needs taxes to exist? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxes are supposed to be the founding contributionary rate of offset to collect from stewards to the preponderance of courts as the median cost necessary to REMEDY damages and disputes, not to Exist.

    Government exists because it provides services and is liable if it fails to perform. Government as an artistic expression of the people in office is what has always been there to handicap law-breakers back onto the right-path, not a self-sustaining monolith of worship. If anyone would collect tax just to prove their existance, then that would be a religion. That's why government is a duty, while U.S. Government is a corporate Church-like organization that behaves like Islam commanding everyone in it's reach to Submit or Die (in a big gray motel with bars on the windows payed-for by a feudal lord to tame you).

  56. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by dwillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Question: Does British Law have a "Fruit of the poisoned tree." concept like US law? If so then this list cannot be legally used to prosecute tax avoidance or evasion.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  57. Gilts & Eurozones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Could you please cite your information, given the whole Quantative Easing scenario is based on using new money to buy Gilts."

    Maastricht treaty forbits printing money to buy government bonds. Britain is a signatory to Maastricht, that restriction is not limited to Euro.

    "Could you please cite your information, given the whole Quantative Easing scenario is based on using new money to buy Gilts."

    QE as told to Parliament was to buy COMMERCIAL ASSETS from the market, which would be legal. QE as implemented by BoE bought government debt from the market, timed to coincide with government selling debt. Clear as day laundering of that money to get around Maastricht.

    You can claim it was the whole purpose of QE but that is not true, not legal and not what Parliament was told.

  58. And that is not legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are confusing Euro and Maastricht.

    The clause Britain signed up to in Maastricht is to prevent currency collapse. It has nothing to do with the Eurozone.

    What Brown did was not legal, and as the BoE bought from the market not directly from the government, they knew it wasn't legal and knew they were creating a false market for government gilts.

    Hence the crusade to point the finger at Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, etc.

  59. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by carigis · · Score: 1

    fruits of the poisoned tree does not apply here. the original illegality was not committed by police. its any evidenc stemming from illegal action by police and any benefit gained from that illegal action is in itself illegal and therefore inadmissable. As the information was freely turned over by another country and the uk is not required to comply with swiss or french law its not illegal.. if anything only HSBC can be held responsible for failing to adequalty secure confidential banking information or the individual who stole it.. the cops are in the clear in this one. which is probably why HSBC has nothing to say..

  60. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Funny

    The information may have been merely copied, but it is being used to facilitate actual theft in the form of taxes.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  61. Re:Why are governments so dependent on tax revenue by Z34107 · · Score: 1

    What you're talking about is what an economist would call "fiscal policy" - how much the government spends or taxes. In the short run, the government can increase the money supply by spending a ton of money; this in turn increases the demand for goods and services, and we see a nice little economic bubble. Each dollar spent in this way tends to have more than $1 economic effect; this is called the Keynesian Multiplier. Taxation has the opposite effect.

    Of course, that's all in the short-run. But, governments are best at short-run thinking. In the long run, governments tend to rely on monetary policy, which means having their central banks (the Fed) keep interest rates at a certain level. Low interest rates means easy credit and economic expansion (at risk of inflation), and high interest rates mean tight credit and less expansion.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  62. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by GordianusTheFinder · · Score: 1

    Most of the time members of the government treat tax avoidance and tax evasion as being synonymous. It seems to be a deliberate campaign to scare people into paying more tax than they are required to pay.

  63. Switzerland? by andersh · · Score: 1

    Switzerland is not a member of the EU at all.

    Switzerland is party to the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) together with Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.

    EFTA has an agreement with the EU on trade that makes EFTA part of the EU's inner market. However Switzerland is not part of that agreement either.

  64. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by log0n · · Score: 1

    It's not tax evasion, it's tax avoision :)

  65. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The information may have been merely copied, but it is being used to facilitate actual theft in the form of taxes.

    Taxes aren't theft. They are a perfectly legal and justified redirection of some of society's economic activity to its maintenance. I, for one, am quite happy if some rich assholes who are trying to weasel out of paying their share get caught and forced to pay what they owe the rest of us.

    Libertarianism is pathetic in general and this particular argument is the amongst its most stupid ones. Grow up.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  66. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Taxes are not theft.

  67. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by russotto · · Score: 1

    Taxes are not theft.

    Right. Taxes are worse, because the money taken from you will be used to fund such things as the local corrupt police department, the transportation security agency, the war in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, or something else you don't like. At best, the funds are pocketed by some corrupt official along the way. In the mean time, all the good things they say they are using the taxes for -- roads, schools, fire stations, hospitals, air traffic control, etc -- are allowed to deteriorate so they have an excuse to raise taxes some more.

  68. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Actually the German government has already used it for their own tax auditing. The guy fled with a couple of DVDs worth of data and exchanged it with the German authorities in exchange for immunity and asylum.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  69. Stupid employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have auctioned off the information to the highest bidder, letting both the countries and the account holders bid... Could have made a truckload of money!

  70. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    What about the people who have money in there stemming from previous deposits, such as inheritance etc....we are talking about wealthy families, not rich, but wealthy ...(like kellog's or disney family)...what then, they would have to start proving everything to everyone about where the money cam from years ago, maybe even hundreds years ago, to account for all the money sitting there...the only people that should be allowed this list is the swiss bank it came from , as this is a swiss banking list not a uk banking list, and is their legal property...i do not understand even how the UK authorities were involved???

  71. Re:Remember kids: When you steal something it's wr by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    Any taking of property without permission is theft. The only differences between taxes and government-recognized theft is the perpetrator. Legal, yes—they would hardly choose outlaw their own actions—but absolutely not justified.

    Statism is pathetic in general and this particular form of double-standard is among its most stupid ones. Grow up.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  72. Re:Remember kids, UK stole nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding right? When the government changed after the election earlier this year the out-going chief secretary of the treasury left a note to his sucessor which said: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left."