Google Maps Used To Find Tax Cheats

phantomfive writes "Some countries are worried about the privacy implications of Google Maps, but Lithuania is using them to find tax cheats. 'After Google's car-borne cameras were driven through the Vilnius area last year, the tax men in this small Baltic nation got busy. They have spent months combing through footage looking for unreported taxable wealth. ... Two recent cases netted $130,000 in taxes and penalties after investigators found houses photographed by Google that weren't on official maps. ... "We were very impressed," said Modestas Kaseliauskas, head of the State Tax Authority. "We realized that we could do more with less and in shorter time."' The people of Lithuania don't seem to mind. 'Authorities have been aided by the local populace. "We received even more support than we expected," said Mr. Kaseliauskas.'"

Comments

But of course they do!

[war4peace]

The people of Lithuania don't seem to mind. 'Authorities have been aided by the local populace. "We received even more support than we expected," said Mr. Kaseliauskas.'

It's only normal and expected. I would help authorities catch the assholes who don't pay their taxes. Unfortunately, where I live authorities don't even try catching them, mainly because they're all the same.

Re:But of course they do!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Aside from 'fairness' in itself(which probably is a motivator, you can even piss off some of the smarter flavors of monkeys by presenting them with 'unfair' situations), I suspect that perfectly sensible self-interest is at work:

When the tax man comes, the poor are least able to hide(they have no lawyers, no accountants, and they tend to spend close to what they earn, so even if they are being paid in cash under the table, they still show up in sales taxes); but they also have fuck all money to collect.

The wealthy(especially so in countries with high levels of economic inequality) are where the assets are, often a commanding percentage of them; but they also have by far the most sophisticated measures for avoiding taxation.

It's the intermediate cases, who might actually have enough money to even be worth the trouble of collecting; but have neither the money nor the influence to engage in effective tax evasion, who end up footing the bill(since going after people poorer than them is nearly pointless, there just isn't any wealth there, and going after people richer than them has traditionally been difficult). Why wouldn't they resent tax evasion?

Re:But of course they do!

[Penguinisto]

Unfortunately, where I live authorities don't even try catching them, mainly because they're all the same.

...do you mean the same cheaters, or that the authorities and the cheats are one and the same? Because out here, it's the latter.

Re:But of course they do!

[JimMcc]

The wealthy(especially so in countries with high levels of economic inequality) are where the assets are, often a commanding percentage of them; but they also have by far the most sophisticated measures for avoiding taxation.

Like the USA? We have greater economic inequality since the robber baron era. And we seem hell bent on becoming the newest third world country.

Re:But of course they do!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yes, the US is an unfortunately good example of this behavior in action.

Re:But of course they do!

[war4peace]

Both :)
Authorities cheat, wealthy people who are not authorities cheat as well and there's some sort of mutually-advantageous non-involvement agreement going on between the two.

About 8 years back there was a country-wide police audit which intended to find those members of the police force owning unjustified assets. They found... 2 (two) guys and sentenced them to... disciplinary move to the countryside for three years.
No further comment.

Re:But of course they do!

[JDevers]

That proves nothing other than that the top 10% make most of the money, substantially more than 90% of it in fact. Why the fuck SHOULDN'T they have to pay more?

The top 15% in this country make $100,000 or more a year, that is a long way from "wealthy" in most people's books and it makes perfect sense that all the people who make greater than $100,000 a year should pay more than all the people below poverty level even if there are MORE people below poverty level.

If it makes you feel better, look up what percentage of their income the top 10% pay in sales taxes versus the bottom 50%.

Re:But of course they do!

[Rinikusu]

It is real fucking unfair, especially when you consider the reason why those ~50% of the people "not paying income tax" don't pay income tax because they don't make ANY FUCKING MONEY to fucking tax because those 10% have fucking siphoned all the FUCKING MONEY that would have gone to wages for people to FUCKING PAY TAXES ON into their own pockets. You stupid FUCKING moron.

Re:But of course they do!

[thomasw_lrd]

I actually did look up a little bit on it. Warren Buffet was the first name that came to mind. He paid over 7 million dollars in taxes, and if you include his 23% share in Berkshire Hathaway he paid over $1billion in taxes.

I know $7 mil is a lot more than I paid in last year, and he paid in an effect rate of 17%, which is again higher than my rate, and my wife and I are of those top 15%.

Re:But of course they do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a smidgen of info for you. The tax man doesn't give a shit if the poor don't even file their taxes.

The tax man cares about:
1. Any business
2. High earning people

Even if the IRS went after someone not pay taxes on a 16000 a year income they would likely incur larger losses than recoup lost anything.

Re:But of course they do!

[Archangel Michael]

The problem is, and the GP hinted at it, taxes are regressive.The rich can simply move to avoid taxes, while the poor are left holding the bag. Rich can avoid taxes, the poor cannot. Additionally, when the wealthy move or move their assets to avoid taxes (confiscatory) it hurts the poor more than it does the wealthy, taking jobs with them, but leaving those that fill the jobs behind.

They once tried a tax on "Luxury" items, like boats (yachts) and other things, the rich simply stopped buying them. It didn't hurt them, it hurt those that built, sold, maintained and staffed them. It was repealed fairly quickly. Problem is, this admittedly anecdotal evidence, is never remembered by those who keep trying to soak the rich.

Really, taxing the RICH doesn't help anyone. It just makes you feel better.

Re:But of course they do!

[Archangel Michael]

So, why would the rich do anything other than protect their wealth against people who are trying to confiscate it? You act surprise that when people go after wealth the wealth hides. I know it makes you feel good to say "fucking unfair", but what you don't realize is that "fair" is subjective term, and has nothing to do with reality or rose tinted viewpoints. What matters is what actually happens, not what you "intended" the result to be.

A baseball player intends to hit a homerun every at bat. A basketball player intends to hit the shot every time he shoots. What Fucking matters isn't what you want, it matters what happens.

Last thing, about "fairness", is it fair that you think you're entitled to someone elses money via Tax Policy? Taxes should stop being concerned with "fair" and start being concerned with results. Bottom 50 pay no taxes, that isn't good, regardless if it is fair or not.

Re:But of course they do!

[LordLimecat]

When the tax man comes, the poor are least able to hide(they have no lawyers, no accountants, and they tend to spend close to what they earn, so even if they are being paid in cash under the table, they still show up in sales taxes); but they also have fuck all money to collect

At least in the US, "the poor" are generally getting far more out of the system, tax wise, than they are putting in.

Re:But of course they do!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You should really factor in at least state taxes, if not local, there: the US is a federalist country, and the effective tax rate on the citizenry is determined at both the federal and state level...

Re:But of course they do!

[blackest_k]

Are they ?
Two cases spring to mind housing and wages
first housing a tenant gets government money to pay a proportion up to 100% in some cases to pay their landlord. The landlord has a buy to let mortgage which is paid for by the rent received and gives him a comfortable profit. Seems to me the government is subsidizing the landlord clearly the cost of providing that housing is more than if the council was to buy the house pay the mortgage and rent it to the tenant. if the tenant in that house continues to receive government help surely the state are essentially gifting the landlord with free real estate.

second case joe works in freds factory but the wages fred pays joe are not high enough for joe to support him and his family so the government steps in and gives joe a tax credit in order for joes family to get by. lets say that the tax credit is worth 100 dollars then in effect fred is being subsidised to the tune of $100 because without that subsidy fred would have to pay a living wage.

In child care in ireland at least the hse gives private creches money so they can charge lower fees to the parents. This can often lead to millions being paid out to private creches which employ minimum wage workers to look after peoples children and in recent news, it appears to be look after badly.

Certainly seems that there are rich people getting paid means tested benefits with no questions asked and unlike the tenants who lose assistance proportionality to any rise in income landlords are free to buy more property and take even more from the public purse.

       

Re:But of course they do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute. My boss made 10 million last year. 10 fucking million. My pay rate did not go up at all, but the number of hours I work for free did. I must work for free because if I don't, I get fired for not completing my job. I get paid for 40, I work for 44.

My boss made 10 million, and my workload is increased.

I don't get paid for the increase.

I work harder than my boss - who just spent a couple of weeks in Fiji in his third house, after being knighted because he made himself some money even though he was born into one of richest families in the country - and I work longer hours, and I get screamed at if I don't.

Why should he pay a significantly higher value in taxes? Because he makes thirty times my income. In the last 10 weeks, I've worked sufficient hours for 13 weeks just to keep my job. I have had to pay from my pocket just to work those hours - food, for example, and yet he benefits from it. All I get is more work added to my must-complete-before-I-go-home pile.

But here's the thing: a few years back, the prime minister in my country was whining that the top 10% pay 74% of the taxes, just like your little bitch-moaning. What he failed to mention was that the top 10% get 90% of the income.

That means that those who earn 10% of the income are paying 24% of the taxes. Think about it - those who earn a tenth are paying a quarter, and those who earn nine-tenths are paying three-quarters.

They're not even getting close to their share.

This is why your approach - of looking at dollar value - is just utterly childish. Time to grow up, dude.

Re:But of course they do!

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to fact check yourself, and maybe cite a source for why you'd ever factor in the taxes owed by his C-corporation into his personal tax obligation. If Berkshire were an LLC maybe, but it's not and you're dead wrong.

In 2010 Warren Buffett earned about $62.8 million and he paid about $6.9 million in tax after deductions of about $23 million.

I know $23 mil is a lot more than I deducted last year. He paid in an effect rate of 11% on his gross earnings, which is much lower than my rate, and my wife and I are of those bottom 85%.

Re:But of course they do!

[dryeo]

(I'm in Canada which shouldn't be much different) That's true for the bottom 10% or so, it's the next 40 or 50% that really suffer. There was a recent study, no link sorry, that the bottom 50% of Canadians actually pay a larger percent of their income in taxes and government fees then the top 50%. It's the fees that are the real killer. Need tires? Well there's a $20 environment fee so if all you can afford is the $60 cheap Chinese tire that you'd be nuts to take on the freeway, well there's a 33% tax, I mean fee, plus the sales tax and GST on the fee bringing the price up to close to $100 per tire plus mounting and balancing. Buy a top of the line S rated tire for $300 a piece, well the fee is still $20 so you're paying $320 plus taxes. Either way disposal consists of throwing the worn tires into a container and shipping to Africa for a small profit so the environment fee is just a tax that hits the poor
There are a million example of similar fees and taxes that actually hit the poor harder so even though they pay little income tax they don't have any near the money left over from taxes etc compared to the rich who also get low income tax and pay a much smaller percent in fees. Oh, GST is reimbursed if you're a business as well here and if you're rich, you have a business and tax number.

Re:But of course they do!

[blane.bramble]

If the top 10% own more than 90% of the wealth, then yes, this is unfair. Simple economics. No need to swear about it.

Re:But of course they do!

[thomasw_lrd]

According to my quick research, yes the top 7% own about 63% of the wealth, but that also means that 93% own 37% of the wealth. These numbers are discouraging, but it dosn't mean that 63% of the wealth should pay almost 90% of the taxes.

Re:But of course they do!

[volmtech]

I can tell you never ran a business or built a commercial building. You start a business to make a profit. A small increase in labor cost may wipe out your profits. If you want to guarantee a living wage for the worker, guarantee a profit for the owner.

If you think council housing is so profitable take out a mortgage and have some built. Are some people getting rich off the government? You bet, but you don't want smaller government, you just want it do other than what it is doing now.

Re:But of course they do!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. The rich are the inherently bad actors in this system. They got where they are by siphoning profit off of the productivity of others and they use their ill-earned gains to rig the system in their favor. No matter how much money and power they accumulate, they will not stop until everyone else is subjugated to their twisted will. Like the robber barons and feudal lords of previous times, the wealthy provide no benefit to society that could not be provided by less cruel means. They really need to be purged from the system entirely. When they can learn to share the toys with the other children, they will be allowed to live.

Re:But of course they do!

[j-beda]

According to my quick research, yes the top 7% own about 63% of the wealth, but that also means that 93% own 37% of the wealth. These numbers are discouraging, but it dosn't mean that 63% of the wealth should pay almost 90% of the taxes.

It also doe not mean that 63% of the wealth should pay just 63% of the taxes either.

If "Chris" does not earn enough to feed the family, should we be taxing Chris at all? Most would set the tax rate for Chris' family pretty low if not zero. If there are enough families in this situation, even though collectively they might own a significant fraction of the wealth of the nation, on a per-family basis they are barely making by, and while we might be able to squeeze out a few shekels from each of them, it probably is not good public policy to take much.

Since we use our tax system to do more than raise operating costs (we use it for social and economic direction purposes too), and we do not completely understand how tax policy ultimately effects the economy at a fundamental basis, and we don't all agree on what those social and economic principles should be in the first place, I don't have any simple solution (other than giving me absolute power - I promise to be fair....)

Re:But of course they do!

[thomasw_lrd]

Which is why I would actually argue with doing away with income taxes all together and implement a national sales tax. But we shouldn't let Congress decide on this, we need a Constitutional Amendment that would cap the amount the sales tax could be based GDP. Certain items would always be tax exempt. Food, Gas, Utilities. Add in the fact that Congress has to pass a budget that can be no greater than the percentage of GDP that the sales tax is. I'm sure the proposal is missing a few items, but in theory, it's a good one.

Re:But of course they do!

[j-beda]

I'm sure the proposal is missing a few items, but in theory, it's a good one.

I don't know that a sales tax would generate enough revenue at palatable rates. The national Canadian sales tax (the GST) seems to generate a bit under $5 billion per percentage point ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html ) but that does have various exemptions including groceries. While the total of the federal income tax and consumption tax seems to be a bit under $200 billion per year ($153 billion income tax, $43 billion consumption tax for 2009 for example - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt02a-eng.htm ) For 2011 it looks like the federal budget was about $270 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_budget ).

Since basic groceries are currently non-GST taxed in Canada, we could get a bit more than $5 billion per tax percentage point. From ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/america-food-getting-cheaper-unless-youre-poor/4923/ ) we see that Canadians as a whole spend about 10% of their family budget on food at home. Since the $5 billion per percentage point does not include these groceries purchases, it only represents about 90% of purchases. If we taxed that food too, we should generate about $5.6 billion per percentage point. To generate $270 billion we would need to charge a rate of 48.2% on total purchases of about $560 billion.

Is this total purchases number reasonable? Stats Canada says ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil131a-eng.htm) the average family consumption for 2011 was about $55k for 13.3 million households ( http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_2-eng.cfm ) for $731 billion so this is not an unreasonable number. I'll use the $731 billion as it is probably more accurate than the calculation based on GST collection. So if we have $731 billion in purchases, we will need to collect at a 37% rate to generate $70 billion.

If you make exemptions for "necessities" the rate would need to be higher. How much higher? Well, if we want to exempt the necessities, one way would be to in some way not collect taxes on "basic needs", or give a rebate on the taxes paid for those amounts. We can get a figure for what these "basic needs" might cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada#Basic_needs_poverty_measure and http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=3443 for 2006 data) . Not taxing these "basic needs" would be "better" than just excepting categories like "food, gas, utilities" in that we would be able to collect taxes on food and gas and utilities beyond the "necessary" level - people buying "rice and beans" end up getting them without being taxed while those buy8ing caviar and foie gras get dinged by the tax-man. Yeah this might be hard to administer, but we are trying for the best possible argument for this type of system.

In 2006 this seemed to be about $16,000 per couple or for the whole population of a bit under 32 million, this would to about $256 billion in exempted purchases. Gosh, that's a big fraction of all purchases! Maybe the average family size is bigger than that? Actually, it seems to be about 2.5 for the whole country, b

Re:But of course they do!

[Archangel Michael]

The rich are neither "good" or "bad". They have self interest and act accordingly, just like everyone else. Not accounting for self interest in taxation policy leads to one thing, regressive taxes. The only "good" option is to limit taxes to minimum and governance the same. Anything less is decidedly regressive, meaning it only affects those that cannot avoid it.

Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Qwavel]

Personally, I would think that people would be happy to help the tax cops find the tax cheats. When rich people and corporations cheat on their taxes I have to pay more.

And yet I understand his surprise. For some reason, ordinary joes & janes (who get a salary and have little opportunity to cheat on their taxes) often seem to be against the idea of clamping down on high-end tax cheats. For some reason, their feeling that taxes are unpleasant (to put it mildly) translates into an aversion to the idea of them being properly enforced.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[gnasher719]

Here's how some people think:

1. I want to be rich.
2. If I was rich, I wouldn't want to pay a lot of taxes.
3. Therefore, I don't want rich people to pay a lot of taxes.

It's totally irrational, but that's how it goes.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fche]

... or maybe they have a sense that taxes are a necessary evil. One might feel schadenfreude at the violators due to the former ... but also sympathy due to the latter.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

... or maybe they have a sense that taxes are a necessary evil. One might feel schadenfreude at the violators due to the former ... but also sympathy due to the latter.

I think that the surprising thing is that anybody would think that a necessary evil badly and unevenly enforced would possibly be better than a necessary evil efficiently and fairly enforced.

There is, arguably, nothing more corrosive to the rule of law than flagrantly spotty and selective enforcement of it.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, it seems nearly all Americans think of themselves merely as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Which leads to stupidity like people voting for politicians that promise to cut the taxes of the rich and end the programs that the voter needs to eat.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fche]

Good point ... were it not that the law itself can be illogical / capricious.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[gandhi_2]

I'll take "stupid" people voting for liberty over "lazy" people voting for a living any day.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The point remains in that case: an illogical/capricious law enforced inconsistently or selectively is going to be even more illogical and capricious than such a law upheld uniformly. Doesn't mean that you don't want to get it off the books as soon as possible; but selective enforcement is a beautiful tool for keeping shit on the books: if you don't enforce it in situations were somebody might fight back, it could remain for decades without trouble, ready to be thrown at anybody unsympathetic enough to be a safe target.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[pla]

3. Therefore, I don't want rich people to pay a lot of taxes.

I normally would agree with you on "typical idiot" grounds, but in this case, I think you've sold a lot of people short.

I, along with plenty of others, object to taxes - Mine, Bill Gates', yours - Because we have a government that doesn't even pretend to represent our interests anymore. we therefore view starving it out of existence the most rational course of action (and don't give me that crap about getting to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum every few years).

Yes, we have a country that really should just get it over with and split in half along red/blue boundaries. But deeper than that, we could find far more common ground than disagreement, on which the government consistently goes against the will of us all, in favor of either itself or its non-compulsory financial supporters (ie, Fritz Hollings, D-Disney). We have wars no one supports, prohibitions no one supports, social controls no one supports, entitlements only those receiving them support, a justice system that protects serial rapists and murderers from real justice while putting good people away for technicalities. Even down to the petty BS, we have red light cameras proven to cause more accidents, speed limits everyone goes at least 10mph over, a drinking age that practically no one reaches before getting drunk... For each of the "big" laws we can agree we need to keep us from each other's throats, we have a thousand papercuts to which we add the insult that we have to pay to inflict them on ourselves.

So I don't want the rich to cheat. I don't want to get rich out of a delusion that someday I'll get to cheat. I don't want to not pay my "fair share" - More like I don't want a share at all of what they offer.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it seems nearly all Americans think of themselves merely as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Which leads to stupidity like people voting for politicians that promise to cut the taxes of the rich and end the programs that the voter needs to eat.

Agreed. There are times I wish that I could teach one undeniable truth to Americans, just one minor thing I could instill into everyone's minds just to see what sort of change it would make. And if I could, that thing would be the sentence "You're not simply any amount of tax breaks away from the upper class". If everyone understood that one little thing, the entire country would change almost overnight.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[niado]

I'll take "stupid" people voting for liberty over "lazy" people voting for a living any day.

You put the scare quotes on the wrong words.

I'll take stupid people voting for "liberty" over lazy people voting for "a living" any day.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

You want your fellow countrymen to vote for the liberty to starve? For the liberty to not be able to afford housing? For the liberty to not afford medical care?

You need help.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I would think that people would be happy to help the tax cops find the tax cheats. When rich people and corporations cheat on their taxes I have to pay more.

I love it when other people get mugged on the street. When rich people are getting mugged, it means the criminals will be less likely to mug me.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Nadaka]

In an environment of sufficient economic inequity. The ability to effectively express ones rights and achieve liberty is reserved almost exclusively for those with the means to control the system to their advantage.

To create a greater liberty for the larger population, by necessity the license of the plutocrats to corrupt and distort the system to their own advantage must be limited.

I am a libertarian socialist.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[GameboyRMH]

I don't know how a person could come to believe this without becoming a violent revolutionary soon afterwards. If you honestly want to starve your government to death and go through the bloody transition to a new one, why not take a shot at seeing it happen within your lifetime rather than "suffering" your whole life for the supposed good of future generations?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fche]

If many voters need politicians' help to satisfy their "needs to eat", something is very wrong.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you, Americans may well be about to lose their liberty, but they are certainly not about to starve.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

I agree, a system that has working folks who cannot afford to live without government assistance is incredibly wrong.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I think that the surprising thing is that anybody would think that a necessary evil badly and unevenly enforced would possibly be better than a necessary evil efficiently and fairly enforced.

But what if robbery wasn't necessary?

People seemed to survive in 1912 without having the fruits of their labors stolen.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for him, but I want my fellow countrymen to feel good about themselves, have opportunities, make opportunities, and not be beholden to the people they vote into office for their livelihood. I want them to earn their housing, food, and medical care, because not only do we all get the benefit of their labor, but we also get less crime, better cared-for children, and other benefits. They too will get benefits that can't be had any other way: self-respect and personal growth for instance.

Should there be a safety net? Almost certainly. But if even a quarter of the people who talk like you put their money where their mouth is (as I do), handling it privately will not only work out just fine, but will also be fair, less violent (follow *any* law backwards and you get the use of force), more efficient, actually create opportunities, and be much less prone to corruption.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[misexistentialist]

Let's all think that we are fated to be losers, and beg for some table scraps from our betters, while imagining that we are sticking them up. And we'll vote for open borders, bigger government, and gay marriage, because that's the only way scum like us can get ahead in this world!

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[ifdef]

I'm not sure that that accurately describes the situation in Lithuania.

Many of the people who are rich there are perceived, rightly or wrongly, of having made their money, not by working hard, but by having influence. When Lithuania privatized large sections of the economy, state assets were often bought at a bargain price by those who were friends of the officials handling the privatization. These may have been former communist officials, kingpins of organized crime, or both (assuming that there's a difference). Or so the perception is.

Some of this "if I can't have it then nobody can" mentality and suspicion of neighbors may have been there for centuries, but Soviet communism added its own twist. Under the communist system, it was almost impossible for someone to lose their job. They would get paid, no matter what they did. On the other hand, the work that they did was often useless, in the sense that if the farmer harvested his potatoes, they might end up rotting in a warehouse somewhere anyway, so why bother working hard to harvest the potatoes? Especially because you wouldn't be paid any less, since they were not YOUR potatoes anyway. The only way to get ahead, in those days, was by stealing from your employer (and boy, do I have a lot of stories, but that's for another time). But the ordinary person would only have a limited ability to steal without getting caught. The big shots, however, could get away with a whole lot, and they were resented by the ordinary people. Even people who may have made their wealth legitimately were suspected of doing so by theft and fraud, because that was just the way the system worked.

People who were not in positions of influence (i.e. the Party) didn't have much hope at all of EVER bettering their situation through any legitimate means.

Keep that in mind when you read about politics in any of the ex-Soviet states. It explains a lot.

So, in Lithuania (and also presumably Russia and any of the other countries that haven't fully recovered from sovietism yet), it seems perfectly understandable to me that "ordinary" people would be glad to see rich people get caught and punished for any kind of cheating. It's not the same dynamic as one might expect here.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am a libertarian socialist.

Does that mean, in order to keep people from losing liberty, you want to completely enslave everyone under a socialist government?

>the license of the plutocrats to corrupt and distort the system to their own advantage must be limited.

There seems to be no lever better for the plutocrats to use than a single organization with a monopoly over violence. Look how its working out for them in USSA.

Your ideas seem contradictory.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[drainbramage]

Right.
Until the invention of massive governments everyone starved, had no homes, and were always sick.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[mc6809e]

Here's how some people think:

1. I want to be rich.
2. If I was rich, I wouldn't want to pay a lot of taxes.
3. Therefore, I don't want rich people to pay a lot of taxes.

4. Make sure the government taxes income instead of wealth.
5. Profit!

#4 is nice because if you're rich, you can look like a saint by calling for higher taxes on the wealthy knowing that most people are ignorant of the difference between wealth and income. You can smile knowing hard working highly paid (but not necessarily rich) professionals, like engineers, nurses, or doctors, are paying your share.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[i kan reed]

It's certainly not the case that wages are incredibly depressed compared to productivity, and the average private employer wages in this country force people to live paycheck to paycheck. Oh man, if you could only imagine a country if people might unexpectedly lose their job, face high unemployment and need weeks they don't have to find new work. It would be so horrible, thank god we don't live in a country like that, and we can afford to be crass and ignore the possibility of anyone starving.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's head just exploded...

>I am a libertarian socialist.

Does that mean, in order to keep people from losing liberty, you want to completely enslave everyone under a socialist government?

>the license of the plutocrats to corrupt and distort the system to their own advantage must be limited.

There seems to be no lever better for the plutocrats to use than a single organization with a monopoly over violence. Look how its working out for them in USSA.

Your ideas seem contradictory.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You are delusional. Government is not the major threat to your liberty now. It is the corporations and rich guys who threaten your liberty. The rich will use any means to threaten your liberty. Right now they buy politicians, corrupt the government, run astro turf organizations, hire shills and liars to get you. Among all these instruments they use, democratic government is the only thing that you can use at some point to get the control back, get the country back. At some point enough people will pay enough attention to clean up the mess.

And the rich know it too. So they use all the resources they have to create a pathological irrational antipathy to all government and persuade you to reduce taxes and reduce it ability to enforce laws. Just remember this, if you actually manage to starve the government out of existence, there is nothing to stop you from being enslaved by the rich once again.

If you are not rich, the democracy is the only weapon you have, the only way to achieve liberty. Starving the beast is a snake oil sold by self serving rich people and the shills bought by them.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am a libertarian socialist.

Does that mean, in order to keep people from losing liberty, you want to completely enslave everyone under a socialist government?

>the license of the plutocrats to corrupt and distort the system to their own advantage must be limited.

There seems to be no lever better for the plutocrats to use than a single organization with a monopoly over violence. Look how its working out for them in USSA.

Your ideas seem contradictory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
No, social anarchism does not require a state. Do you guys just stop reading at "socialism"? Why the absurd strawman of "you want to enslave everyone"?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

...starve? Please, show us this ongoing mass starvation which allegedly occurred throughout US history before welfare came about. While I'm certain there were folks who did suffer horribly (and yes, died), it's nothing like the sheer numbers that you're insinuating - most destitute folks either found some means of making some sort of living, or were aided by charitable organizations.

...not afford housing? Wait - I hate to be the adult here, but since when is there an enumerated 'right to housing' in the constitution, let alone a government mandate to provide it? Usually folks just made do, lived with family, etc etc. You know, before society decided that families were nothing more than an antiquated concept which got in the way of the orgasm schedule?

...afford medical care? The reason it costs so much is precisely because governmental interference with the medical industry (and no, I'm not talking safety regs - I'm talking about the whole government-prodded medical insurance industry that doctors and hospitals happily overcharge against. It's a problem that has creeped up over time and won't be easy to fix. When hospitals blithely charge $45 for, say, just a hypodermic needle (and not its contents or delivery), something is seriously wrong with the healthcare industry.)

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

That is a nice strawman you setup there.
Any real argument or you just going to go with that?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

I do donate money to private charity it simply is not the correct method to deal with this issue though. I have no interest in this silly taxes are violence shtick. Providing for the poor is a function of government. Far more so than waging foreign wars or protecting other nations who do not pay us taxes.

Charities are not inherently any more or less prone to corruption than government efforts. Many of them are simply morally repugnant to me as well. I will not donate to a great many because they either attempt to force religion onto recipients of their charity or have other discriminatory practices. I will donate to religious charities provided they do not do either of those things.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[fche]

Luckily not "many" - many enough to be referred to as a voting block in the grandparent. Surely less than 47%.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I am a libertarian socialist.

>Does that mean, in order to keep people from losing liberty, you want to completely enslave everyone under a socialist government?

I am not the OP nor do I think your question is genuine. Still the same, I will answer your question.

I am also a libertarian socialist. Left-Libertarianists believe in limited government and social ownership (think community co-op) of industry. They are against corporatism and big government and see them as pillars of power to be abused. In which they are.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

People had the fruits of their labor stolen before 1912 too.

Slavery is the obvious point. Even if you ignore slavery, the minorities were exploited ruthlessly. Would you care to look at how people other than Whites fared at that time? Chinese gold prospectors were systematically discriminated and driven out. Indian (from the Indian subcontinent) were denied property rights and the farms they owned were confiscated. US Supreme Court (Justice Sutherland) ruled that "yes, yes, Indians are caucasians, but they are not White, so not eligible for property rights."

Let us leave the racial minorities and focus on Whites alone. They too were systematically looted by the banks, the companies colluded to keep the wages low, and stole the fruits of their labor. They stole the farms through banks. Life for poor people was pretty hard, then the depression hit.

So your claim that people were living in some sort of golden age before the income tax is totally wrong.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe sounds like the rich and the government are best buddies, not the government as an innocent pawn.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

I warned that this would happen.
Slashdot libertarians as a whole badly need a polisci class.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

As far as I can see both you and he have valid points. The government does serve in a protective capacity for the poor, and the government does abuse its powers, sometimes leading to wars in the case of the US. The correct answer of course is a middle ground, controlling the government and restraining the abuses while encouraging the equalising and protective ability for the poor. Note that means the poor, not the unionised public sector, which has proven itself very capable of holding entire countries to ransom over a paycheque.

This is quite a compicated feat and needs to be done from within the system, which is why it's popular with neither adrenaline-addicted extreme, but it remains the right course of action.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Nadaka]

My ideas are not at all contradictory. Your understanding of socialism and libertarianism is merely limited.

Your practical expression of liberty can be limited by your means, or by the infringement of a non-government entity, just as much as it can be limited by rule of law. Libertarian socialism seeks to enhance your practical liberty, not just your theoretical liberty, by using good laws to protect the people and their means of expressing liberty from exploitation and by removing the bad laws that can be exploited by both government and plutocrats to harm you and your means of expressing your liberty. Unregulated markets lead to slavery just as much as pure command economies, because in the end you will inevitably come to a position where one entity holds a monopoly on power and can force compliance on the populace.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Penguinisto]

If this necessary evil were fairly and evenly enforced, everyone making over $x would pay the same percentage of tax on income, with no loopholes. That way Joe Ghetto pays nothing on his meager poverty-line income, Joe Sixpack eats a 25%** cut of his middle-class income (no mortgage/child-care credits, etc), and Joe Caviar would dole out 25%** of his massive income (no trusts, shell companies, overseas banks accounts, etc.)

This would damned sure get folks to pay attention, and maybe they'd start screaming at their congresscritters over every errant dime the government spends.

** 25% is just an arbitrary number. Make it whatever # is needed to keep the government running.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

Thats a nice straw man you have there. I guess that is easier than a real argument.

Also I commend the way you managed to work bigotry into a totally unrelated discussion. Would you care to tell us how you feel about other minority groups?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

You can look at the numbers for TANF and add in the folks moved to disability to get these numbers. That last thing is done to make the feds pay for them instead of the state.

47% vastly over states the issue, but it is a pretty funny quote. While I might not like our current president, at least we dodged a hell of a bullet.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

1. Go look at the TANF numbers yourself.

2. Section 8. Shelter is a basic human right. Families are generally speaking more secure than in decades past. The divorce rate is way down compared to the 90s.

3. Denying the poor care will not fix that.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and now we have Obama, thanks to those stupid people - and he is no better than anyone in the past 30 years. All about him and his cronies - and we will all pay for it until we do something drastic about it.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>the companies colluded to keep the wages low, and stole the fruits of their labor

"Collusion" is a pejorative term for peaceful cooperation.

If my neighbor and I agree to independently sell cookies for $5, how exactly are we stealing from a passersby who buys a cookie?
Clearly the buyer valued having a cookie more than they valued the $5 in their pocket, so they gained from the transaction.

What is being stolen from them exactly?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

I commend your efforts to educate, but I must warn you that you will not have much success. Many of these folks simply lack the education to understand what you are saying. I think this is not an accident either, American education and media seems to be designed to generate this outcome.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Thavilden]

Glenn Beck found Slashdot, is all, and forgot to sign up for an account.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Velex]

What the hell does gay marriage have to do with it?

Seriously. I should just keep my yap shut and just mod you flamebait, but I'll bite.

I am sick of dipshits like you asking me to constantly choose between voting for smaller government and the political values I believe in and being a second-class person or else voting for big nanny state government but at least knowing that if my significant other is in the hospital, I'll be able to see him.

I mean, seriously, what the hell is wrong with you dipshits? You're telling me that I can either have small government, which I assume means ending the meaningless war on drugs and terror that are turning us into a police state, or I can get married to the person I love?

No, I'll tell you what the hell you mean by small government. You want a government that tells me what I can and cannot put in my body, from substances that have been used throughout human history safely and are beginning to be recognized as legitimately medically useful to my boyfriend's body parts. You want a government with TSA checkpoints at every airport, railroad station, and probably at every freeway interchange if you had your way. You want "small government" that will dump billions upon billions of dollars into bombing the shit out of third world countries and propping up dictators. You want a border patrol with the right to stop and search anyone, anywhere, anytime solely based on the color of their skin.

Hell, what the hell do I care?

I used to be a Libertarian. I still have a Libertarian keychain I bought four years ago. Let's face it. The Libertarian party isn't going to get into power or be in a position to do jack shit until hell freezes over.

I guess you've convinced me. If voting Democrat will continue legitimizing homosexuality and transgender identities and if voting Democrat might get the gears rolling to respect the people of states who have voted to end marijuana prohibition, I guess I'll vote Democrat.

Because there's sure as hell no way that the Republicans represent anything I even remotely care about. Either way, social security will remain a joke. "Obamacare" (federalized Romneycare) will continue to be a handout to medical "insurance" companies with little hope of real reform. We're going to continue being Team America World Police. The imaginary property crowd will continue gaining clout in Washington, in Redmond, and in Silicon Valley until I'll probably need to register my general-purpose computer without a DRM locked bootloader just the same as a firearm. We're going to continue throwing orders of magnitude more money at pointless wars and "cyber" warfare and "omg the terrirists" than we do at exploring our own solar system and basic scientific research.

But hell. Why the hell not. At least with the Democrats, I might be able to get married, maybe adopt some day, and buy the only substance I've ever used that seems to do jack shit for my anxiety attacks over the counter at any corner Walgreens. (Sorry, I need something more effective than a placebo, so anti-depressants, 5-HTP, St. John's wort, you name it, they're all out. If anything, everything I just listed makes it worse.)

Having Libertarians in power would be great. No more gay marriage and no more straight marriage either! Get the government out of the damned marriage business and separate the legal implications from the religious issues. It's not going to happen, though. The more shit I hear out of Republicans and right-wing nuts like you just makes me wonder whether or not I should vote Democrat for the first time in my life in 2014 and again in '16. (Might be amusing to have another Clinton in the white house, and Billy might just be able to pull off being the first first husband evar.)

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

He is not that dumb. That is an act.
I wonder how many of his viewers realize he is as much a character as Larry the Cable Guy.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Left-Libertarianists believe in limited government and social ownership (think community co-op) of industry.

Interesting.

Does that mean if I scrounge and save wealth up for years in order to build a private factory on my property, I will be rewarded by a mob of neighbors violently chasing me out? Or does it mean you simply will boycott my products because you don't "believe in" it? What scale of industry does something have to be to be subjected to "social ownership"?

What will you do if I am an experienced entrepeneur and am adept at managing my private factory, while the community running their nearby community factory through a voting process or something faces financial losses and is forced to liquidate its property?

I'm having trouble understanding whether believing in "social ownership" means you think you are justified in violating property rights, or if it simply means you have a preference for co-ops. Personally I'd say let the market decide which economic structures are best.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

If you are a homosexual and voting for republicans I can only say "I am Disappoint". Many of them believe you are sort of evil creature and would have you put to death if they could. The rest will claim they love you but hate what you do, which really means what you are.

While I am no fan of the democrats at least they don't have it as a party plank to deny you your civil rights.

An LGBTQ person voting for Republicans in 2013 would be like an African American voting for George Wallace in 1962.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Libertarian socialism seeks to enhance your practical liberty

This principle is very vague. Can I steal goods from a rich person if it enhances my practical liberty? If I am desperate for sex, can I rape a woman if my pleasure exceeds her suffering? By how much can I violate someone's property rights in order to achieve a gain in my practical liberty?

>by using good laws to protect the people

Who defines which laws are good? Does libertarian socialism advocate democracy? Perhaps we have libertarian socialism now, only people's ideas of "good" differ from your idea.

>Unregulated markets lead to slavery

Free markets help dissolve slavery. I suggest reading Ludwig von Mises's Human Action, in the section where he explains how if one treats men like cattle, one cannot command more than cattle-like performances.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that. There are working class and even lower classes of people who sometimes adopt conservative view points. I wish it were in hope that they might one day be among the wealthy and corrupt. But usually they simply want to identify with the wealthy or be seen as an affiliate of the over lords.
                            If the poor and middle classes ever really understand the level of abuse that has been put upon them we may see a really nasty uprising.
                            It is hard to really know but the "Arab Spring" apparently is fueled by their feeling that they are being bled economically by the non Arab world causing higher food prices for them and they consider global warming to be an effect of western civilizations. The people in Mexico were pretty outraged at the price of corn as they felt the price was a conspiracy.
                              Maybe we are seeing the first wave of climate change wars.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-violent protest can work within a generation, look at India.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post, but I'm really confused why you didn't figure this out earlier.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[janimal]

That's because the nomad nations get slaughtered to insignificance by organized governments every once in a while. Watch the Simpsons episode about the board with a nail in it, and you'll get what I mean.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[betterprimate]

The co-op analogy is not all encompassing.

The power is limited by rejecting commercial propertarianism. This principle doesn't restrict your freedom to be an entrepreneur and is not counter to personal propertarianism. This is the common school of thought and an accepted method to restrict economic (i.e. power) elitism.

If by being an "entrepreneur", you mean to dictate a state's natural resource, then no. That is socially owned and social wealth. With libertarian-socialism, you would not see "entrepreneurs" opening a mine, rigging markets, monopolizing, all the while paying a slave-wage to miners.

If you are really interested, there are many philosophies of libertarianism. Wikipedia is a good start. They all focus on individual freedom, but the current "libertarianism" we see today is counter to the core philosophies, it is *very* new and vague, and it undermines individual freedom by rejecting individual ownership of labor in favor of wage-slavery. In practice, it can be compared to corporatism. Free markets erect power greater than the state and the individual. That power is always abused. If you think lobbying is a problem in government, then you are not aware of corporations strong-arming states to get their own laws passed.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Solandri]

When rich people and corporations cheat on their taxes I have to pay more.

Agreed on the rich people part. Disagree on the corporation part. Corporations don't pay taxes. They just pass them through to their customers and employees.

Money is just a representation of productivity. People are the only source of productivity, whether they're acting individually or organized together into a company. Taxes are a diversion of part of that productivity into the government's coffers (not a big deal because the government spends that money just like a taxpayer would). So no matter how high you raise corporate tax rates, companies don't pay taxes because they cannot generate productivity - only their employees do. So corporate taxes are all paid by the company's employees or customers (and if a customer is another company, the taxes are paid by that company's employees and customers, etc).

For simplicity, say the economy consists of two individuals, two companies, and the government (ignore year-to-year growth). The individuals make $40k each and (for simplicity) save nothing. That means the total economy is 2*$40k = $80k circulating each year. The government takes 20% of GDP in taxes, or $16k/yr which is reinvested into the economy. The individuals spend $64k/yr. The companies take in $80k/yr in revenue.

Initially, there are no corporate taxes - the entirety of the tax burden falls upon the individuals, so each individual pays $8k in taxes and has $32k take-home pay. They get upset that they're paying taxes while the corporations are not, so they vote to abolish personal income taxes. All taxes will now be paid by corporations.

Do you think each company will magically be able to increase their expenses (taxes) by $8k/yr without changing anything else? Of course not. They have to keep revenue and expenses in balance. Either:

• (A) They cut their employees' wages by $8k/yr. The government still gets $16k (20%), and each individual now makes $32k/yr tax-free. Exactly the same as their post-tax take-home pay before they decided to shift all taxes to corporations.
• (B) Or they maintain their employee's wages at $40k/yr, but raise their prices by 25% to generate an additional $10k/yr. The economy is now $100k/yr. The government's 20% is $20k/yr. The companies now take in $100k/yr ($80k from the individuals, $20k from the government). And each individual spends $40k/yr. But wait, prices have increased 25%. So that $40k can only buy the equivalent of $40k/1.25 = $32k prior to the price increase. Exactly the same as before taxes were shifted to corporations.
• (C) Some partial combination of the above two.

Ultimately, people are the only creators of productivity, and they're the only consumers of it. The only way to create more real (inflation-adjusted) money is to increase productivity. Shifting taxes from individuals to corporations doesn't magically create productivity, it just rearranges the accounting. So the people pay the same amount in taxes no matter what your corporate tax rate is.

That's not to say corporate taxes are useless. There are a few corporate taxes which are helpful to the economy (e.g. property taxes discourage people from letting land sit unused while they wait for it to appreciate, VATs reduce the viability of middlemen and flipping). But shifting taxes to corporations doesn't actually put more money (inflation-adjusted) into individuals' pockets. The main effect is just to hide how much of the economy's productivity is being diverted to the government.

And likewise corporations cheating on their taxes doesn't mean individuals (on average) have to pay more. It means that company's employees and customers pay less, while non-employees and non-customers pay more. But on average it doesn't change how much taxes individuals have to pay. Only the government's overall tax intake (as percentage of GDP) can change that.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[gandhi_2]

So without an all-powerfull government redistributing money, everyone would starve huh?
And no one ever starved in a Communist country?

Every dollar someone gets without working for is a dollar someone else works for but doesn't get.

You don't see the downside to vote-buying or a dependant population, and you think I need help?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[betterprimate]

This is also what the OP meant by:

Your practical expression of liberty can be limited by your means, or by the infringement of a non-government entity, just as much as it can be limited by rule of law. Libertarian socialism seeks to enhance your practical liberty, not just your theoretical liberty, by using good laws to protect the people and their means of expressing liberty from exploitation and by removing the bad laws that can be exploited by both government and plutocrats to harm you and your means of expressing your liberty.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Archangel Michael]

It wasn't a strawman anymore than the GP poster "You want your fellow countrymen to vote for the liberty to starve?" comment was.

The clear implication is that without Government people would starve, and with government nobody starves. Neither of which is entirely accurate. It is this fear tactic that doesn't deal in facts which is designed to illicit emotional responses to get people to vote a certain way. It is Liberalism 101.

You can go on a hunger strike anytime you want, that is really what "liberty to starve" actually means.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Archangel Michael]

Blacks voting for the DNC en masse has really helped them so much. Care to explain how keeping black people poor (welfare) and dependent has helped them? Heaven forbid one makes it successful and conservative, only to be called Uncle Tom to shame them back onto the DNC reservation.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[saros]

Basically, yes. Until the invention of governments, massive numbers of people starved due to bad luck. They had no homes (or territory) that couldn't be taken or destroyed by bandits or raiders from neighboring groups. And they were very, very frequently sick and died of diseases easily prevented by modern medicine (which requires all the infrastructure associated with modern governments). An imperfect government, even a pretty bad one, is infinitely better than none at all.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[jtseng]

Dear 'Murrikans,

The city on a hill is a myth. Manifest Destiny is a myth. 'Murrikan exceptionalism is a crock of shit. Any sort of decency or aspiration is a universal human trait. And unless you graduate from college/vo-tech, work damn hard, and/or get lucky, you're not going to do better than the clowns that appear on the Jerry Springer show.

PS - see if you can find Benghazi on a map. Hell, see if you can find the US on a map.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

>If by being an "entrepreneur", you mean to dictate a state's natural resource, then no.

So it's OK if I walk on your property and dig up your soil or camp there?

Who decides which natural resources are used and how? People up to 1 mile away? People 100 miles away? People with guns, I'm assuming?

>With libertarian-socialism, you would not see "entrepreneurs" opening a mine

I agree, the economy would be a shambles as with any other kind of socialism. Without entrepeneurs subject to financial gains and losses, economic calculation and rational economic activity is not possible.

>rigging markets, monopolizing, all the while paying a slave-wage to miners.

What is a "rigged market"? A buyer purchases something when he values the good more than the price paid and, mutatis mutandis, the seller accepts funds when he values the funds more than the good given up.

>it undermines individual freedom by rejecting individual ownership of labor in favor of wage-slavery.

What is "wage slavery"? If you don't like your wages, why not quit?

>corporations strong-arming states to get their own laws passed.

You were the one who said there should be a State, not me.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Food is not easy to attain. The moment someone in power (being an employer is a position of power - you offer, the unemployed accepts or gets nothing but accusations of being lazy) gets to decide how much you work and how little you get paid, you lose all protection from exploitation.

Feel free to say people should starve, but while you do just remember that the same law that prevents them stealing from you also enables those in power to discriminate against them, or even steal from them. My boss commands unpaid overtime - it's expected, it's required, and if I don't do it I'll be fired.

My life is being stolen from me, one hour at a time, and I get nothing for it except the threat of unemployment.

An important thing to remember - while you're fortunate enough to have a job and the related wealth, not everyone else is so lucky.

I live in Dunedin, New Zealand. A whole lot of people around here feel that if you work hard, you get rewarded.

You don't work as hard as you think you do. I, however, do work as hard as you think you do - harder, even. Much harder. I also get barely above minimum wage for my paid hours - I get well below it when you consider my all of my overtime. If I don't do it, I'll immediately join the other 9000 people in my town, looking for work. Of course, my boss will put out the bad word against me, making it just that much harder to find work.

Now, before you say I probably don't work that hard, or should consider getting a degree, I already have a science degree. I also have a non-verbal learning disability which makes me unemployable for approximately 50% of jobs - almost exclusively the most menial. (One psych read an evaluation, and her reaction was "Shit, that's pretty severe!") I straight out should not have been able to get my degree, which brings up the other thing in my report - I have an extremely high I.Q. The odds are (99.5% likelihood) that I'm much, much smarter than you. Hell, the odds are that I'm much, much smarter than almost everyone who reads this message.

Regardless of the amount of effort I put in, no matter how hard I work, I will likely never earn average wage.

Say it out loud, right now: I AM ALMOST CERTAINLY SMARTER THAN YOU, AND IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN THAT I WILL NEVER HAVE A JOB THAT PAYS MORE THAN A SUBSISTENCE WAGE.

There is little I can do about that. I have the intellect to get a PostGrad, a Masters, even a PhD, but my specific learning disability makes that (or any) level of organisation) extremely difficult. It makes information acquisition extremely tough.

I worked longer hours to get my Bachelor of Science than anybody I know. I worked similar hours to a friend who got his BSc. (Hons).

Know what the lecturers think of me? They think I'm lazy, because they know how smart I am from teaching me one-on-one. That method works very well, because of both my IQ and the learning techniques I developed over my lifetime, but I'm not sure that the lecturers would be pleased with having to devote 40 hours to teaching only me.

The real stink of it all is the self-righteous arseholes such as yourself, who think that those who work hard deserve what they get, and anybody not in a position of power just hasn't worked hard enough.

I work harder than you do, on a daily basis, and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life, but I will never, ever, be appropriately paid for the level of work I put in.

So, back to the thrust of your post: should the excessively wealthy pay excessive taxes

Yes they fucking well should, because they don't work nearly as hard as you think they do, and they don't deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for sitting in an office making decisions that almost anybody could make. It's just not that hard.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[scarboni888]

That, my friend, was fucking brilliant.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[kaatochacha]

I dunno. For me it's more "They say they'll find the tax cheats, but really they'll ignore the tax cheats and pound on me some more".
It's like a guy asking for a gun so he can go get the "bad guys", but he has a history of robbing you. You just don't want to give him that gun.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[scarboni888]

Opulence should be forbidden anywhere there are people who do not have shelter, medical care, and enough to eat.

We're really not humane until we practice that, in my opinion.

And then if we want to claim to be 'civilized' education needs to be available without sacrificing ones future up to at least the first (bachelor's) degree.

Anything less is barbaric.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Heard of trust busting? Heard of the Sherman Act, monopoly and restrictive trade practices act?

After 100 years of hard fought victories of progressives and liberals, you are able to blow smoke imagining "collusion" can't be all that bad. But when collusion, cartel forming, monopolies were are legal, ordinary Americans eked out subsistence living, working in dangerous factories, living in shacks, breathing polluted air, drinking dirty water. That is the lot of White Americans who fared much much better than the blacks and Hispanics.

Dont imagine if those days are back you, (I assume you are white American) will get back the same level of social standing over the rest. Those days are gone. Rich people of all colors will collude together to subjugate poor people of all races. Which means, a substantial percentage of the subjugated, exploited population will be white.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The day you shrink the government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, some rich guy will drown it. Then you will be subjugated by some private guy and you have no chance of ever getting back. It would take centuries to overthrow them and bring back democracy.

Yes, the rich people are using the power of the government and threaten you. What good is liberty if you have been looted completely and left without any means of using the liberty for in any meaningful way? The solution is not to weaken the government, but to reduce the influence of money on government. That is why the ruling "money is speech" should send chills down your spine. The top one percent have not more "speech" than the bottom 90%. It is our government, we need to take control of it, make it powerful, powerful enough to give the man on the street a fighting chance.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[russotto]

Yeah, it seems nearly all Americans think of themselves merely as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Which leads to stupidity like people voting for politicians that promise to cut the taxes of the rich and end the programs that the voter needs to eat.

The problem is I get the choice between Candidate A, who says he's going to raise the taxes for the rich (greater than half what I make) to fund programs for the poor (less than one tenth of what I make), and Candidate B, who says he's going to lower the taxes on the rich (greater than twice what I make) and make those deadbeats work (with enough wiggle room that he can say he's not against veterans, women and children, the handicapped, the elderly, etc). Neither one seems all that appealing.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[manu0601]

I'll take "stupid" people voting for liberty over "lazy" people voting for a living any day.

Here is an opportunity to use my favorite Henri Lacordaire's quote:

Between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor, between master and servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law that liberates

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[aardvarkjoe]

If you are a homosexual and voting for republicans I can only say "I am Disappoint". Many of them believe you are sort of evil creature and would have you put to death if they could.

Really? Name me one elected Republican who has ever said anything about putting homosexuals to death. Just one.

You post a lot of stupid crap, but this comment has to take the cake for full-on idiotic.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[ultranova]

If this necessary evil were fairly and evenly enforced, everyone making over $x would pay the same percentage of tax on income, with no loopholes.

Close, but in your scenario it's possible to end up with less in hand as your income increases. How the real system works is that you only pay taxes on the portion of your income that exceeds $x (and higher percentages on portions exceeding other tresholds), solving this problem.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you have no idea... You just present an imaginary in-between spot between what you call liberty, and the exact opposite which is a controlling government. You know, such a spot just may exist, and may thrive. But we don't want a middle ground, we want absolute freedom, because that is the only moral way to go.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[XcepticZP]

I don't know about you, but I'm very oppressed by insane and immoral laws. What exactly are you trying to say with your quote?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[manu0601]

Laws are required to preserve your liberty. For instance, without labor laws, you are free to be a slave

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[pla]

The day you shrink the government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, some rich guy will drown it.

Do you really think the police exist to protect you? Report a break-in or mugging some time and see how much of a response you get.

The day you get rid of the government's police protection of the rich, the "rich guy" becomes a body in the gutter.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Velex]

I agree. I usually vote Libertarian. Voting Republican would be the height of absurdity for me. That being said, neither major party has ever been terribly attractive to me.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[XcepticZP]

You're not getting my point. My liberty is currently being impinged by laws. To say that all laws are required for my liberty is completely asinine.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Nadaka]

Absolute freedom can not exist.

The law must prohibit murder in order to preserve the liberty to live.

Likewise the law must prohibit exploitation of the market in order to preserve the right to participate in equitable exchange.

A lawless land does not free you from tyranny, it allows anyone and everyone with more power than you to inflict upon you as many tyrannies as they care to.

In other words, YOU have no idea.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[manu0601]

I did not say all laws are required to preserve your liberty. DMCA does not help on that front, for instance. But without any laws, your liberty would only be what you could afford with your own power. Without laws, your private properties are only yours because you are able to physically defend them against anyone that want to take it from you.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The day you get rid of the government's police protection of the rich, the "rich guy" becomes a body in the gutter.

You will be the body in the gutter. Rich will always buy the thugs they need to protect themselves. There is some chance you could get police on your side, someday with enough political action. There is no chance in hell you will outgun the henchmen of the rich.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

Care to apologize?

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

I am not sure what you mean.
Please elaborate. Welfare, AKA TANF is not a program you can stay on indefinitely. I highly doubt you know that much about this topic. By the way most people receiving some form of assistance are employed.

African Americans are not the majority of TANF recipients. The entire idea of that is something racists cooked up. White folks in trailers are really the poster child.

When faced with a choice between a party offering assistance and one who espouses letting you starve I think I can see the attraction.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

Not at all.
The clear implication is that the freedom they are voting for is the freedom to starve. This is not an emotional argument, it is simple factual one. You can either vote for the safety net you may never need or use, or not. I never stated no one starves, stop making arguments up in your head.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

So then my killing you or taking your property does not infringe on your liberty?

With no laws, bands/tribes of folks will be doing just that. History proves this.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Archangel Michael]

I mean, that after a few generations of being on the plantation, when one is free to leave, but voting to remain on said plantation is not in one's self interest. There are, however, too few voices that tell the slaves they can leave, and those that do are called Racist. Go figure that one out.

That, and our welfare policies have destroyed families. For Generations. This isn't good for anyone. Political Correctness ignores reality on the basis of rose tinted glasses.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[h4rr4r]

Wow, that is some powerful derp.

Go look at the actual statistics. Most people who are "on the plantation" of government assistance are working folks. They are mostly white too, so that is why you are being called a racist. You purposely use a metaphor that includes a history of a race being held in bondage to describe a situation that mostly afflicts members not of that race.

Your average person on this plantation will be back at work soon, that is what the T in TANF stands for. The rest of them are working and getting assistance since the powerful job creators did not create them enough salary to make ends meet. Walmart already teaches their employees to sign up for social welfare programs.

Instead of spouting BS which is consistent with your ideology, go READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go to live in Somalia or some other failed state. You will find exactly what you want there.

Re:Why wouldn't the people support them?

[aardvarkjoe]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

I guess I was wrong in that he did "say something about putting homosexuals to death." So you get a point for that. However, your original claim was that many of them "would have [homosexuals] put to death if they could," which was really what I was trying to get at. If it wasn't obvious to the reader of his statement, he did later issue a statement clarifying that he does not call for putting homosexuals to death, so he still doesn't qualify.

Re:obama appointees....

[fredrated]

I read that and am impressed by how many people are included even though the authors can only say "did they drop out because of back taxes?", i.e., lots of accusations and inuendo without facts.

Just think of ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of what the IRS could do with this technology!

I'm sure U.S. citizens would be just as cooperative as the Lithuanians have been.

Re:Just think of ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't work in the US. The reason is that the US charges income tax, not a VAT or item tax like other countries do.

It is far easier to hide income (which are essentially just bits over a wire) than it is to hide one's mansion or Maybach.

I'd love it if the US dropped the income tax for a VAT and join the rest of the sane world.

Re:Just think of ...

[AuMatar]

The problem is VAT is a sales tax. Sales tax hit those who spend more of their income harder than those who spend less- they're the most regressive form of taxation there is. That's the exact opposite of what taxes should do. What we ought to do instead is actually prosecute tax frauds, reduce loopholes in the tax code, and make investment income tax at a higher rate than earned income.

Re:Just think of ...

[_Shad0w_]

Erm, nope. Pretty much everywhere in Europe has both. We pay income tax when we earn money and VAT when we spend it. We also incur income tax when we save it and get paid interest by the bank.

In fact ~25% of my gross income gets taken in income tax and National Insurance via PAYE before I even get my hands on it, then most stuff I buy has a 20% VAT on top of it (there are exceptions: some stuff is a lower rate and an even small amount of stuff is zero rated).

Re:Just think of ...

[Nadaka]

Sales taxes are horrifically regressive and unacceptable.

Re:Just think of ...

[FuzzyDustBall]

Not if done correctly... Sales tax on non essentials basically taxes people on leisure items (and therefore those with enough money to spend on leisure) while letting others live. It's actually one of the things done correctly in my home state, food, clothing etc are not taxed but tv's video games eating at restaurants are.

That's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now bring the start menu back.

Here comes the legislation

[sl4shd0rk]

I can just see the coming flurry of bills on the Senate floor to obfuscate parts of Google maps "in the name of national security"

Re:Here comes the legislation

[StatureOfLiberty]

That would be a waste of time. Many jurisdictions are already paying for aerial imagery taken by aircraft flying and filming precise routes over their territory. They can clearly see when new structures appear or when existing structures are modified. In fact, automated algorithms can actually find the changes for them. With oblique imagery, jurisdictions can even measure the height of structures. Here is an example of a company that provides such services. Pictometry - Government - Assess

Re:Here comes the legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they? We all know the rich control the government and take the piss in front of us on a daily basis.

Re:Here comes the legislation

[nairnr]

That would be a waste of time. Many jurisdictions are already paying for aerial imagery taken by aircraft flying and filming precise routes over their territory. They can clearly see when new structures appear or when existing structures are modified. In fact, automated algorithms can actually find the changes for them. With oblique imagery, jurisdictions can even measure the height of structures. Here is an example of a company that provides such services. Pictometry - Government - Assess

Very true... It is very important to most municipalities to have accurate GIS based data. It is used for so many things. I was just at the local ESRI conference in Calgary where they were showing their integrated awareness system which incorporates something like 200+ datasets from different business units. When I had a city tree removed they knew its entire history - what kind of tree, when it had been pruned. All of this helps a city run smoothly and react to requests.

This very example was shown from a county in the states. They had LIDAR shot every year and using land parcels and volumetrics were able to determine if significant additions had been done to the property to cross reference permits and taxes. There is nothing special about using google to do it. In fact it is less current then they would be doing it themselves anyways...

Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud tax evasion, since I don't believe in about 99% of what government does with tax money. Naturally, the less money in the hands of coercive authority, the less damage they can do. Keep it up, friends.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

Roads. Defense. Sanitation. Food and shelter for the poor.

Hate 'em all.

Dope.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the aqueducts!

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

>Roads. Defense. Sanitation. Food and shelter for the poor.

All goods that can be created by freely acting individuals without government masterminding.

Governments still excel at some tasks, like shoving people in ovens.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[dkleinsc]

That's stupid for 2 reasons:
1. I'll bet you good money you believe in more than 1% of what the government is doing: 1% of the US federal budget is $38 billion, which just about covers either federal law enforcement (including prosecutions) or transportation infrastructure (including air travel, highways, rail, and cargo shipping), but not both. Cut out law enforcement and you might as well not have a legal system. Cut out transportation and all that stuff you currently see showing up in your local Walmart won't get there. I highly doubt you want to live in that kind of country.

2. If Paul evades taxes successfully, the government will simply try to collect revenue from someone else. If they can't, they will borrow the money to function. If they can't borrow the money, they will inflate the currency.

Basically, your argument, which I'm guessing you think is libertarian, is actually anarchist - a coercive authority with no money can't do anything at all. So on that basis, I'd recommend that you move to Somalia, Afghanistan, or one of the other areas of the world that has no functioning government whatsoever, and thus no taxes.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[GameboyRMH]

You may be unaware of this but libertarians have solutions for all of this - 4x4s and mud trails instead of roads, dudes with guns instead of defense, open pits of burning garbage, DIY sewage systems and surgical masks instead of sanitation.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[AuMatar]

We tried that. People were dieing from unsafe food products- meat that was slaughtered in unsanitary conditions, alcohol that has gasoline and other non-edible fillers added in, and crooks who just plain lied about what was in their product. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle sometime.

Foo and shelter for the poor? Non-government efforts have been attempted since pre-Roman times. They all failed miserably- people would literally die of starvation in major cities. Now we have government efforts. They're not perfect, but they work- the starvation in western civilizations is damn near zero, the remainder being child abuse cases.

Defense- please tell me how you're going to self organize for defense against an opponent that can kill you by tens of thousands from a continent away, and pay for this effort? Oh, and please tell me how you'll do this without creating an organization that will just take power.

Roads? Well since we never prevented anyone from building them, the US must have a had a sweet set of private roads for cross country travel before the government stepped in and fucked them up. Oh wait, it was the exact opposite- the government was needed to build and finance the interstate system. In fact, there's been no time in the history of the world where an extensive network of private roads was made adequate to the nation's transportation needs.

Step the fuck out of fantasyville and into the real world.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

>We tried that. People were dieing from unsafe food products- meat that was slaughtered in unsanitary conditions, alcohol that has gasoline and other non-edible fillers added in, and crooks who just plain lied about what was in their product.

Yes, torts like fraud occur all the time. You haven't shown that you need to pay taxes to a government to fight these torts. Their are free market options like private arbitration firms, private security firms, bounty hunters, selling claims to those are willing to prosecute (champerty), and other solutions that haven't been allowed to be discovered yet.

>Foo and shelter for the poor?... They all failed miserably- people would literally die of starvation in major cities.

If it bothers you, why not give more aid? I am bothered by my not having enough video games; can I take your money to combat that problem?

>Defense- please tell me how you're going to self organize for defense against an opponent that can kill you by tens of thousands from a continent away

Why would they want to kill individuals? How would they "win" exactly? Anyway, guerilla warfare is extremely expensive and difficult to combat.

>Oh, and please tell me how you'll do this without creating an organization that will just take power.

It might or might not be possible, but obviously you've already failed at this and you appear to have Stockholm syndrome.

>Oh wait, it was the exact opposite- the government was needed to build and finance the interstate system.

You should heed Bastiat's tale of the seen and the unseen. What you see are the public roads. What you don't see are all the goods and service that could have been brought about had the funds not been taken from the public and disbursed by bureaucrats.

Unable to think outside of the box, you seem to have your head hermetically sealed in the box. Too bad.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[gravious]

I am a fan of your work and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[shutdown -p now]

>> Their are free market options like private arbitration firms, private security firms, bounty hunters, selling claims to those are willing to prosecute (champerty), and other solutions that haven't been allowed to be discovered yet.

Are you saying that the guy with the bigger gun should always win the contract dispute?

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[CrimsonAvenger]

1. I'll bet you good money you believe in more than 1% of what the government is doing: 1% of the US federal budget is $38 billion, which just about covers either federal law enforcement (including prosecutions) or transportation infrastructure (including air travel, highways, rail, and cargo shipping), but not both. Cut out law enforcement and you might as well not have a legal system.

Note that there is a difference between Federal Law Enforcement and State Law Enforcement in the USA. The overwhelming majority of things most of us think of as "crimes" (y'know, things like robbery, assault, murder, that sort of thing) are actually covered by State Law Enforcement (and Courts) as opposed to Federal Law Enforcement....

Federal Law Enforcement does cover important stuff like Copyright and Patent enforcement, of course - that might be important to you....

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[niado]

The main problem that makes anarchy untenable is that, if you can succeed in throwing off the proverbial "yoke of government taxation", there will be a power vacuum, which will soon be filled by power seekers of various types.

If you would rather fight your whole life to prevent being killed by the inevitable warlords and their "private security", as opposed to living in our current system, then our minds cannot meet.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a toss up as to whether a libertarian is dumber than an anarchist. Neither is in touch with reality one bit. And make note that the forests are not full of anarchist and libertarians. N. America is large. A man can take a walk and live in places in which he will never see any government employees at all, ever. No taxes, no money, no government, all await those that want to go back to a natural life. Isn't it funny that they won't do that?

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[Bruce66423]

The turnpike system of private roads in England worked well enough. The option of building the interstates as private roads was never attempted; instead the government just went ahead and did it. Same in Europe, except in France you do pay a toll to use their Freeways, though they are operated by the government. But from first principles there's no reason why a private firm shouldn't build, operate and charge for the use of a road. You're probably right about the rest of the stuff - but it's as well to be bombproof!

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[dkleinsc]

Some other things federal law enforcement regularly gets involved in dealing with:
- Kidnappings
- Gun trafficking
- Human trafficking
- Drug smuggling
- Gang violence
- Organized crime
- Bank heists
- Counterfeiting
- Securities fraud
- Hate crimes committed by groups like the KKK or Aryan Nation
- And, oh yeah, terrorists (I'm not saying we should be running around afraid of terrorists, but there are some, and the FBI is the leading organization to deal with them in the US)

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[CrimsonAvenger]

It should be noted that most of those things became issues for the Feds when the FBI was looking for reasons to continue their funding levels. Kidnapping used to be handled just fine by the locals. Ditto Bank robberies. Ditto gang violence. Ditto Organized crime.

And "gun trafficking" wasn't even a crime till the Feds made it one. Ditto "drug smuggling". And "hate crimes".

Counterfeiting I'll give you. Not an FBI job, but the T-men like to keep busy with it.

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[PPH]

oblig

Re:Here's one person who doesn't support them

[ultranova]

Yes, torts like fraud occur all the time. You haven't shown that you need to pay taxes to a government to fight these torts. Their are free market options like private arbitration firms, private security firms, bounty hunters, selling claims to those are willing to prosecute (champerty), and other solutions that haven't been allowed to be discovered yet.

Prosecute? You mean appeal to the government to decide which of us it'll side with?

But yes, bounty hunters - also called mercenaries - would work to enforce your will. And they work just as well enforcing Joe Warlord's will, so you might have bigger problems than fraud.

I am bothered by my not having enough video games; can I take your money to combat that problem?

Ladies and gentlemen, libertarianism in a nutshell: not having food is just like not having video games.

But to answer your question: without a government, whether you can take my stuff or I can take yours depends entirely on which one of us has a bigger club.

What about reported buildings that weren't there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistakes in the government's favor are totally fine. Time to start putting up mylar screens in front of your house. Painting your house to look like a blurry 8-bit image.

Moon the IRS!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Dear Mr. Google,

Please tell me when your satellite gadget is going to be flying over me taking snapshots. I would like to go outside, and show the IRS my better side.

Thanks,

Mr. Kid

They will never find the underground homes!

[BetaDays]

I'll just move everything underground! http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/stunning-underground-homes

Re:They will never find the underground homes!

[Beorytis]

They missed Bob's Bunker in Wisconsin! http://antiquetvguy.com/Frameset%20Pages/HomepageFrameSet1.html (Click on Bob's bunker at left. I apologize in advance for the geocities hangover web design.)

Probably F'ed up Batman's plans as well

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm sure there's a pic somewhere on Google Maps of a super hero ducking into his lair.

Don't seem to mind...

[Beorytis]

Maybe the people of Lithuania don't seem to mind because their Tax Agency actually has a reputation for fairness, due process, and reasonable penalties for violators. Stranger things have happened. I personally made use of the street view in Lithuania to "visit" my ancestors' villages. (They left for the US ca. 1910, but the villages have survived the past century pretty well.)

Re:Don't seem to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, that made me laugh.
As an inhabitant of the said country, I can inform you that the Tax Agency is as corrupt as always. Due process doesn't exist.
And no, reason doesn't work here.
It's a backwards country that just forbade abortions, criminalized "gay behavior" in public to "protect the children", routinely puts people in jails for years for growing a couple of plants(and those are not "nice" jails, think russian jails) and just introduced a new law to censor the Internet.

Regarding the article: you know what they say :)
Lietuviui laime, kai dega kaimyno namas . [Darn Slashdot, fix your Unicode support]

Re:Don't seem to mind...

[Pentium100]

Maybe the people of Lithuania don't seem to mind because their Tax Agency actually has a reputation for fairness, due process, and reasonable penalties for violators.

ROFL

Here's one thing I know about the Tax Agency. They provide explanations of certain tax laws, basically "the law says you have to do this, this and that", then, some time later, they change the explanation and fine anybody who was following the previous explanation essentially for not being able to see the future.

where lots.taxed_houses lots.actual_houses

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is how low-tech and basic this is. When I read the summary that they're "using Google Street View" w/out RTFA, I figured they were spotting photos of gold-plated monocle polishing machines through peoples' windows. No. They're spotting the fact that undocumented houses happen to exist in plain view from the street. At one level, this is about as high-tech as a 1880s beat cop walking by and say, "'ello chaps, whatcha building?" or common snitches. But another way to look at it, is that the tax people and the people on the street weren't talking to each other, and Street View puts the commonly-known-but-not-understood information into the right (or wrong, depending on your PoV) hands. The tax people probably could have done the same job by driving around, but this is faster and more convenient.

select * from lots where lots.taxed_houses lots.actual_houses;

Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get it straight, a bunch of tax men "have spent months combing through footage" and netted $130K? They probably spent several times that paying them...

In Soviet Russia, government Googles you!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Good job, Lithuania!

Wow. Just imagine all the good the old Soviet Union could have done with this technology!

BS

[argStyopa]

I simply don't believe it.

In there, you have a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL claiming that he's happy that they could do MORE with LESS?

Seriously, this is the internet but there is just some shit that I cannot believe.

Fuck Tax Cheats

[FreeUser]

It's only normal and expected. I would help authorities catch the assholes who don't pay their taxes.

Agreed. Or put another way:

Dear Tax Dodger,

Fuck you. Pony up.

Most Sincerely,

The rest of us who pay our taxes honestly.

Wrong! Take General Electric for example.

[Anonymous Coward]

GE pays ZERO taxes to the government. Despite this, they still shut down their medical imaging division and moved it to China. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Give a corporation a tax cut, they WILL NOT use the extra money raise their workers wages, lower prices or hire new employees. The extra money will simply be pocketed as a larger profit which in turn will go to the CEO and the shareholders. Remember, the purpose of a business is maximum profits. A business will always strive to raise their prices the highest amount possible and pay fewest number of workers the lowest amount possible. Allowing them to not pay taxes will not make them suddenly altruistic and allow them to share their windfall with the rest of society. Supply side economics is a miserable failure. Corporate profitability have never been higher, but wage growth has never been lower. Corporations benefit from the services they consume from government so it is only right they pay taxes.

This is not a new approach

[knorthern knight]

http://boingboing.net/2010/05/04/satellite-photos-cat.html
> As the nation of Greece teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, its tax authorities
> are taking aim at Greece's notorious tax-evading rich elite. Using satellite
> photos, the tax authority examined the claim of the residents of Athens's
> wealthy suburbs and discovered that, rather than the 324 swimming
> pools claimed by the locals, there were 16,974 of them.

http://www.italymagazine.com/italy/olbia/google-earth-reveals-tax-evasion-scam-italys-finance-police
> Google Earth reveals tax evasion scam to Italy's Finance Police

http://gizmodo.com/5603054/officials-are-looking-for-your-swimming-pool-on-google-earth-right-now
> Officials Are Looking For Your Swimming Pool on Google Earth Right Now

It works!, Found these in Ireland:

[devloop]

60 billion here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Google+Dublin&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Google&hnear=0x48670e80ea27ac2f:0xa00c7a9973171a0,Dublin,+Ireland&cid=0,0,14179187141338221046&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A

And 74 billion more here:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hollyhill+Industrial+Estate,+Cork,+Ireland&hl=en&sll=51.903599,-8.505019&sspn=0.01124,0.027874&oq=Hollyhill+Industrial+Estate&hnear=Hollyhill+Industrial+Estate,+Cork,+County+Cork,+Ireland&t=m&z=15

They wouldn't need that if they did this.

[master_p]

I do not understand why governments do not adopt the balanced account system: each individual or business should have their accounts balanced: their current expenses plus current savings must match the savings of the previous year plus their current earnings.

Thus, with such a system, no one would be able to hide profits, simply because if they did so there accounts would be unbalanced.

NY STATE

[u16084]

NY Did this a while back http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Heads-Up-Google-Earth-Used-to-Track-Illegal-Pools-on-Long-Island-99723394.html Used Google Earth to track down pools with no permits...

Well, I've been impressed by .LTs before...

[RockDoctor]

I've been impressed enough to give job references ("I worked supervising Mr.X at Y for Z months, and when I had to give Mr.X shit for his equipment falling apart, he impressed me with his repairs, and his honesty." He went on to work for much higher pay with less unreliable equipment and so had to lie less.) And I'm glad to see that others are as imaginative, and effective. Good one, guys and girls! Sock it to them and make sure that the rich thieves pay their taxes!

the politics of envy live on.

[wilfredsatan]

The government in lithuania catch tax cheats with google and the locals help as they are pathetic people who have to pay taxes and resent those that don't but the wealthy never pay them at all so why not target them .too scared the rockerfellers and vanderbuilts would have them snuffed so as allways the poor pay for a government that denies them a job a house human rights and maintains them in poverty.