Slashdot Mirror
NZ Govt May Gut Privacy Laws For US Citizens and Ex-Pats
Master Moose writes with an excerpt from stuff.co.nz indicating that New Zealand's government "wants to override privacy laws to supply the U.S. Government with private details about Americans living in New Zealand. As part of a global tax-dodging crackdown, the U.S. is forcing banks and other financial institutions to hand over the private financial details of U.S. 'persons' and companies based overseas. From July this year, Kiwi banks and insurers will be required to provide U.S. tax authorities with American customers' contact details, bank account numbers and transaction history. The move comes amid continuing criticism of New Zealand's participation in Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement talks, aimed at securing a wider-reaching free trade deal with the U.S. and other countries. Critics say the secretive talks could restrict New Zealand's ability to make its own laws on everything from the environment to employment."
On 23 May 2012, United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced S. 3225, proposed legislation that would require the Office of the United States Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.[77] Wyden said the bill clarifies the intent of the 2002 legislation which was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity, but which, according to Wyden, is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as justification to excessively limit such access.[78] Wyden asserted:
“ The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America—are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. [...] More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement.[78]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If you want to renounce the obligations of citizenship, you must also renounce the benefits of citizenship and officially naturalize as a citizen of another country. Seems fair to me.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Back when the Roman Empire was THE power, you could cross the Danube into "barbarian lands" or exercise other options for getting away from punishing taxes and oppressive laws of the late Empire. In the American-dominated world, you are rapidly running out of those kinds of options.
If you want to renounce the obligations of citizenship, you must also renounce the benefits of citizenship and officially naturalize as a citizen of another country. Seems fair to me.
Most countries distinguish clearly between being a citizen and a resident. And usually the only thing you can't do as a non-citizen resident is voting or standing in general elections, or sometimes things like joining the army or police force. Everything else, there should be little difference.
It seems that the USA has this weird interpretation that US citizens should have all the legal obligations that US residents should have, even if they are not US residents anymore, including obligations that US residents that are not citizens.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/1...
Old news.
..don't panic
Nah, it's called a treaty, and if you don't like the people in your government who signed it then you should vote them out of office in favor of someone who will nullify that treaty.
Alternatively you could revolt. That seems to be working well in the middle east.
You'd have to ask the consulate to be sure, but I would be surprised if you'd be denied the same tax breaks residents can get. There are probably some things you can't get if you live overseas, but then, you also benefit a whole lot more from that consulate (for example) than you would if you had stayed in the US.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
As an American that has traveled and lived abroad, I can state with some authority that it is often quite nice to be an American when traveling. (This was pre-2K, so there are, ahem, some differences now.) When living abroad I paid my local and home country taxes. It wasn't that difficult. It was very nice, to be honest. As an American, you get a big fat deductible for your tax returns. And the local taxes weren't that bad either.
That said, the intrusiveness and 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude of the US of A is pretty disgusting. The New Zealand government should tell the US to shear sheep, or whatever is Kiwi for 'go fuck yourself'.
They do it with nukes. Use that as a precedent. Seriously.
One of the reasons companies move overseas is to avoid US taxes on anything they don't bring back to the US, why should actual citizens be any different?
I decide to move to NZ in my retirement. After a lifetime of working sitting on the porch and watching life go by isn't for me so I start or buy a local business. I hire local employees and pay all the required taxes in NZ for the income made there. I pay US taxes on my retirement income derived from US accounts. Why if I'm not sending money back to the US for deposit (which would have to be reported) does the US need to know anything about income derived from the NZ business?
There's no tax dodger like an Italian tax dodger.
FTFY
So does that mean if someone lives for six months in the US, and six months in NZ, they can officially become stateless?
Sign me up!
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
This isn't about expats living/earning wages overseas, it's about Americans using overseas bank accounts to hide income that they earned in the US, in order to avoid paying taxes on that.
It's causing a lot of upset here in Canada, too, because of our privacy laws, and because the Americans are refusing to give us a reciprocal agreement for Canadians in the US. (on the grounds that they don't enforce foreign laws).
This isn't about expats living/earning wages overseas, it's about Americans using overseas bank accounts to hide income that they earned in the US, in order to avoid paying taxes on that.
It's causing a lot of upset here in Canada, too, because of our privacy laws, and because the Americans are refusing to give us a reciprocal agreement for Canadians in the US. (on the grounds that they don't enforce foreign laws).
In one country where I know how the tax office does it, if they can't get the numbers from you then they estimate. If they can't get the numbers from you in the next year, then obviously the estimate was too low so they estimate a lot higher. On the other hand, they don't tax foreign income. They only add it into the equation for calculating the tax rate for your local income.
New Zealand is playing the role of US puppy, as proved the Kim Dotcom house raid, breaking their own laws in the process as anyway the priority was coming from outside.
You won't fix US attitude from outside, and if you really want to run, don't do it to one of its own colonies.
So the goal was to catch US residents who were claiming they weren't in order to dodge taxes, and it ended up affecting US citizens who AREN'T residents?
Kind of makes it hard to blame the tax dodgers. I would prefer my tax dollars not go to an organization as counterproductive as the US government too.
Well ppl should google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
The real fat cats have stashed more then the national debt in offshore havens.
I dont think the Warfare-Welfare state would spend the money much better,
but chasing down small timers is a sad joke when the real financial pirates
get off scott free for the most part.
Bullshit. The US can pass as many laws it wants, and no matter how much it whines and cries about it, Banks in New Zealand cannot be compelled to comply
+1 insightful. I'm sure all the banks in China are completely ignoring any such stupid US mandate.
Taxation is not an obligation of citizenship, it's an obligation of the consumption of government services. If you don't live in a country, you don't need the services of its government - you don't drive on its roads, you're not protected by its police, fire departments, etc. Civilized countries tax based on residency or source of income, not citizenship, and seem to have no trouble providing their citizens with embassies, consular services, and passports. Why not US?
The United States stands alongside the the shining example of Eritrea, (and even friggin' Eritrea only wants 2%) by taxing its citizens regardless of where they live.
Suppose every nation taxed based on citizenship instead of residency. Every bank on the planet would be responsible for vetting the citizenship of every customer, and keeping up with the taxation data reporting requirements of 190 sovereign nations. It doesn't scale, it costs more to enforce than it collects, and it invokes a huge negative externality by placing the burden of compliance on banks (with costs passed through to all of their clients) that may not even have international branches.
Civilized nations tax based on residency, not citizenship.
I am an American living and working overseas for over half my life. My ties to the U.S. are almost none-existent. My use of U.S. goods and services is possibly even less than many foreigners around the World. Occasionally I might buy a U.S. made product, but that is even rare given the poor quality.
Here are the real effects, and this is just a short list I have time to type.
1. Assumption that all Americans overseas are criminals by definition, even if we did not owe any taxes. The IRS, by their own calculations, says the basic forms will take over 72 hours a year for an American Expat to prepare to properly report their taxes. Most expat tax experts, can not figure them out.
2. Foreign banks are closing or will refuse to open accounts for Americans. I know dozens of real cases already among friends. It is not just American citizens. It is anyone with a U.S. mail address, green card, or any payments transiting the United States to foreign banks. So, yes, many, many none Americans are caught up in this sweep of private information, the majority of which has nothing to do with tax money.
3. The country I live in also has banking secrecy and privacy laws, and as a full resident, it even goes further because in the country where I live it is a constitutional right extended to both residents and foreigners.
4. It also includes any company where an American might be a 10% owner or more, or might have signature authority over the company accounts or other assets. Just think what most international companies are going to do when making a choice between an American employee or CEO vs. a foreigner, as far as disclosing private company information to the U.S. government simply because they have an American working there.
5. It includes disclosing foreign none-citizen none-resident private information to the U.S. government that are family members of an American citizen abroad. For example, a wife or kids account, investments, or pretty much anywhere the American might (you have to prove the negative) have authority over the money . Partnerships of all forms, of all sorts of complexity, are also subject to it. Imagine as a foreigner entering in to a contract with an American citizen, and having to report to the U.S. IRS your private information and dealings. Guess what most foreigners will do from now on to avoid such problems.
6. This includes not only bank accounts, but investments, pensions, insurance policies, various types of contracts. I am not even sure how many insurance policies I have, let alone what would need to be reported. If you are a foreign insurance company, just think how happy they will be to issue a policy to an American client living overseas.
In short, I am forced to obtain citizenship in my country of residency, and give up my citizenship in the United States. It is either that, or say good-bye to my entire life work and return to the United States to starve at some bullshit minimum wage job (I own my own company outside the United States).
Forget the Berlin Wall, what they are building in the United States is far, far more dangerous.
The United States and Eritrea are the only two countries in the world that require their non-resident citizens to file tax returns.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
Oh, how I miss self-righteous Americans. I'll renounce as soon as I have a new passport, thank you very much. In the meantime, perhaps you should consider why other countries don't charge their citizens, who also happily travel home once in while.
Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is affecting Canada as well, and according to one article, this may affect Canadian citizens as well even if they have never been US residents or citizens.
Could you imagine the uproar if (say) Iran threatened to trawl through US bank records for details on Iranian Americans? Totally disgusting. And yet the US can get away with it.
This isn't about expats living/earning wages overseas, it's about Americans using overseas bank accounts to hide income that they earned in the US, in order to avoid paying taxes on that.
That might be the way they sell it on that side of the pond, but the fact of the matter is that US citizens living abroad are still required to file, and (generally, if they live in a low-tax country) pay, US taxes. If I in Switzerland earn an income based entirely within the borders of Switzerland, the US still wants a cut, and the law is designed to catch such foreign residents in addition to US residents.
Banks in New Zealand cannot be compelled to comply
Sure, except that non-compliant banks face a 30% tax on every single transaction in and out of the US. The US government could probably even prohibit US banks from dealing with non-compliant banks, which is the kiss of death.
Legally and morally, the US cannot compel foreign banks to obey US laws. But practically speaking, it can.
The critical issue here is that we don't know exactly what "US Person" means. Canada is in the throes of the same issue, with the US demanding access to banking records for any US Persons, and the scope of this is troubling.
US Persons includes US citizens, of course. But it includes folks who might be entitled to citizenship through birth or parentage, whether or not they are actual citizens. It would include anyone who has ever resided in the US. And the definition can be manipulated to mean whatever the US decides it to mean, down the road. It could eventually mean anyone who has visited the US or anyone who has a dollar-denominated bank account or basically anyone who they are interested in.
There is no burden of proof on the IRS to show that they are entitled to specific records. They can ask for anyone's records and claim "US Person" interest. Do you suppose they will not simply vacuum up everything?
And if there is any avenue for information to come to the US government, you know that the NSA will have it. And the DEA and all the rest.
you should ask kim dotcom about that one.
or about a certain South American president who's plane got searched.
Or the raid that got Osama
the USA has let it be known that their jurisdiction is world wide when they want it to be. The united states routinely commits what would be "acts of war"
After busting your asses for your paychecks, why are you so willing to hand over so much of it to the state?
I live in Canada and I'm quite happy to pay taxes. That's because I get services in return, including free medical care, which is huge. There are some things that simply can't be done effectively by the private sector (education, road maintenance, defense, health care) and I'm very happy to pay the government to do those things. After all, the government is run by elected officials who (at least in my opinion, and at least in Canada) are certainly more accountable to the public than CEOs of private corporations.
I would certainly not be happy to pay taxes to a country I don't live in and that doesn't offer me any useful services in return for my taxes.
You should renounce your US citizenship if you want them to stop asking for stuff in return for those privileges.
For many people, this is not possible. The US government imposes a hefty renunciation tax that can in some cases far exceed a citizen's annual income. If you don't have the money to pay the tax, you must remain a citizen.
I'm quite happy to pay taxes ... because I get ... free medical care ....
Nothing is free, not least of all when you are obviously paying for it.
There are some things that simply can't be done effectively by the private sector (education, road maintenance, defense, health care)
Assertion without evidence. Correlation is not causation.
I'm very happy to pay the government to do those things
And I'm not. But do I get a choice in the matter?
After all, the government is run by elected officials who (at least in my opinion, and at least in Canada) are certainly more accountable to the public than CEOs of private corporations.
If I don't like the way a business operates, I stop buying its products, and it ceases to affect me. If I don't like the way the government operates, I have to continue paying taxes to it anyway.
What little say I get in the government, a single vote on occasion, is always discarded in favor of the majority opinion. It is not accountable to me at all.
That might be the way they sell it on that side of the pond, but the fact of the matter is that US citizens living abroad are still required to file, and (generally, if they live in a low-tax country) pay, US taxes. If I in Switzerland earn an income based entirely within the borders of Switzerland, the US still wants a cut, and the law is designed to catch such foreign residents in addition to US residents.
And if you're in Switzerland, earning an income in Switzerland, maintaining residence in Switzerland, and paying taxes in Switzerland, on what grounds do the Americans have *any* right to lay claim to your income? Taxes are meant to pay for a government infrastructure and services, and if you're living in Switzerland, you're not actually using any of those services -- at least, none of the ones that aren't paid for with user fees. They have user fees for passport/diplomatic services, which are the only actual government services I could see such a person taking advantage of....
Tax dodgers?
Wealthy enough to emigrate to New Zealand?
.
.
.
I'm okay with this!
Since it is a percentage of your holdings, you should be able to pay the tax if you are, in fact, moving to another country and actually selling everything. If you are changing citizenship in name only and remaining in the US the whole year then, yes, you may have some issues. The law seems pretty carefully crafted to not harm those who are really going to obtain citizenship and live elsewhere and to only target rich guys who are playing games.
Do you have an example that would state otherwise? I'd be interested.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Then your answer should be that you don't enforce foreign laws either. And you should stick to your guns until they change their duplicitous tune.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.... some of our banks are publicly traded on the American stock exchanges, for example. If our banks want to continue doing business in the US, then they have to adhere to American laws.
We also have a two-faced weasel for a prime minister, a man whose idea of "fiscal transparency" was putting a see-through window in the new money when they redesigned it a couple of years ago. And unfortunately, due to voter apathy, the fucker actually got a majority government too (seriously, only 25% of eligible voters actually voted for him). Because of these factors, it's unlikely our government will show any teeth at all over this one.
You misunderstand. You don't have to sell your assets or anything; they tax you on what you have as if you have sold it right then and there, even without you actually doing so. They could very well be taxing you on money that you don't even have. Suppose you owned a house in France that was worth $500,000 at the time you expatriated (not even necessarily have it paid off, just had a loan on it and *technically* it was yours) that's about $150,000 you now owe the IRS. Don't have the cash to pay that off? Then you must sell something quick, because if you don't pay it off right away then the US will have you extradited and sent to prison, because that law assumes that if you have X amount of assets and renounce your citizenship, then you did it for the purpose of evading taxes.
They quite literally tax you for money or even income that you may not even have. Furthermore, you're also subject to US taxation for a full TEN YEARS after you've renounced your citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
It might not be "about" expats, but it hurts them. I know - my wife is a dual Australian and American citizen. She hasn't set foot on US soil in a decade but still has to declare her worldwide (i.e. Australian) income every year and file her US tax return. Not only that, she has to report the details and balances of all her bank accounts, every year. And because some of those accounts are jointly held with me (a non-US citizen), then guess what, the US has my details as well.
Now with FATCA coming in (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign-Account-Tax-Compliance-Act-(FATCA)), the IRS is requiring foreign banks to determine which of their account holders may be American, and provide access to a record of transactions/balances for those accounts directly to the US! Needless to say, many banks are refusing to do this, either because it's administratively difficult (how are you going to figure out who is and isn't American unless you mass mail every single customer?) or because it breaches privacy laws in the relevant country. So many banks are simply refusing to deal with American customers and are requiring them to close their accounts.
No wonder record numbers of expats are renouncing their citizenship in recent years (~500 per month, last I heard). The whole concept of taxing non-resident citizens on worldwide income is ridiculous in the first place, and now these new laws just make it intolerable. It's not about us trying to avoid taxes - we pay our fair share and are not wealthy people. It's the administrative burden. Having to file so many extra returns, forms, etc, every single year, to a country you aren't resident in...
I thought about the idea of taking my SSI payout overseas in some 3rd world country where costs were 1/10th what they are in the US.
I found this is not allowed. If you payed into "your" SS account all your life, and expected to be able to withdraw on it after retirement age -- you could only do so in the US. Apparently, if you move overseas to retire -- you forfeit rights to money you paid into the system (at least while living abroad).
This is NOT about moving overseas and changing citizenship -- but is saying that US citizens can only receive US benefits if they remain in the US where SSI payouts qualify them for living under the US-poverty line.
What's up w/that? Of course many of the same supporters of such inane policies are also against paying benefits to those who immigrate into the US. The SSI rules are setup to prevent payouts to people who might move here to retire -- even if they become citizens, because benefits are based on money you pay in. So how can they justify NOT paying who live outside the US who did work?
If it wasn't the government doing it, it would be called fraud and theft...
But in the US, such things as fraud and theft are merely standard policy and law.
You're right - foreign banks cannot be COMPELLED to comply with a US law. Indeed, many of them ~cannot~ due to local privacy laws.
However, read the rest of the law and you'll see the issue. Foreign financial entities that do not comply with face a 30% withholding tax on all US-sourced income. And given that virtually every bank on earth trades in a mix of bonds and stocks from all over the planet, a fair proportion of which will be American ... the bank suffers a significant financial penalty for non-compliance.
So realistically their only options are:
1. Comply; or
2. Refuse any American customers, and force existing American customers to close their accounts (no American customers = no data to report to the IRS).
Many banks are taking option 2 in countries all over the world before this new American law kicks in. It is a royal pain in the behind for Americans overseas, most of whom are not wealthy cat-stroking tax-evading megalomaniacs, but normal people just living normal middle class lives.
Make sure you google "Heart Taxation Act" first before you consider giving up your USA citizenship..... lol the fact that this law was written by Charlie "tax cheating" Rangel and this never gets mentions still continues to crack me up.
But the US is the ONLY country that taxes you on earnings you make overseas while in another country. I mean, not unless you make more than $90k USD a year, but you still gotta file.
I know the argument of "Well embassies" and all those other American benefits (like heath insurance..oh wait...)
NZ taxes your American retirement accounts after you've been here for four years, even if you're not a citizen (just a resident). Seriously? I've already paid taxes on my Roth IRA in one country and I have to pay takes in the future on my 401ks. What entitles NZ to any of that money? None of it was earned here?
Fucking taxes man.
New Zealand non-citizens can vote. It's one of the very few States in the world that allows non-citizens to vote.
No it's about the bloody paperwork involved. It's ridiculous. Yes we may end up owing nothing to the IRS but the administrative burden is huge (or you pay someone else to do it for you).
Secondly, your example works ok for a simple tax situation (earned income from a job), but let me tell you it gets complicated when you start throwing in franked dividends (the US doesn't recognise imputation credits, so you end up getting double taxed on these). Or foreign retirement accounts (which are taxed by the host country when the money is paid IN, usually by the company NOT by you, so when the money comes out once you retire, it's not taxed by the host country but is considered fully taxable income by the IRS).
FATCA itself has nothing to do with the above examples, you're right. But it's just another layer of ridiculous complexity and unfairness to the whole treatment of expats by the IRS. It's a nightmare. A nightmare citizens of any other country do not have to worry about. Just Americans.
Nothing is free, not least of all when you are obviously paying for it.
Well, yes. Let me rephrase that: I don't have to pay when I need medical care; it's already paid for by taxes. And more cheaply than in the US, I might add.
Assertion without evidence. Correlation is not causation.
If you want to let the private sector take care of education, road maintenance, defense, and health care, then move to some place like Somalia or Afghanistan where that's effectively the case.
And I'm not. But do I get a choice in the matter?
No, you get no choice. That's the price of living in a society with civil institutions. Again, if you don't like it, Somalia beckons... go there for a taste of anarchy.
If I don't like the way a business operates, I stop buying its products, and it ceases to affect me.
Completely untrue. That business could affect you in many other ways: By polluting, through monopolistic market manipulation, through buying legislation, ... I'm sure you can think of many more.
What little say I get in the government, a single vote on occasion, is always discarded in favor of the majority opinion. It is not accountable to me at all.
Yes, that's the cynical view that's easy to promote via sound bites. However, I would much rather live in a society like Canada's with our democratic system (flawed though it may be) than in any other society. And migration patterns show that most people agree and vote with their feet.
Nothing is free, not least of all when you are obviously paying for it.
I can go to a doctor and not be out of pocket. That's free.
Now as for the taxation cost, that's a hell of a lot cheaper than private systems and better quality, I don't have to worry about the triage nurse having to do a credit check before stopping the bleeding.
Assertion without evidence. Correlation is not causation.
And you use the exact same assertion without evidence, except you're also using an appeal to authority.
There's plenty of evidence that prices rise after the privatisation of public utilities.
And I'm not. But do I get a choice in the matter?
You can leave. Farewell and I wish you luck in your libertarian paradise, if you can find one that isn't a despotic nightmare.
Otherwise you can accept the fact that you dont always get what you want, especially when the majority of the people in a democracy would rather have it differently.
If I don't like the way a business operates, I stop buying its products, and it ceases to affect me.
LoL, many businesses are set up that you cant do that. Especially in the US. Don't like the way petrol companies are colluding, erm... Public telco's, well they're the only one operating in your area.
If I don't like the way the government operates, I have to continue paying taxes to it anyway.
As above, you can leave. Even getting off the grid and living in some cabin in the woods would get you out of it. However you simply dont want to because it would require you to give up too many creature comforts you've grown accustomed to. This is less of a case of the GPP being wrong and more of a case of "waaahhhhh the world is not as I would like it". Well grow up and get over it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
USA is one of the few countries that taxes you on income no matter where you earn it.
They can do it because you are a USA citizen and fall under it's laws and regulation. You can denounce your citizenship if you don't want to pay it; this tends to be reason you do get expats to denounce their citizenship if they can get it from another country.
Furthermore, you're also subject to US taxation for a full TEN YEARS after you've renounced your citizenship.
Not limited to just U.S. citizens. I'm a U.S. citizen living in Germany and I'm married to a German. Because my wife lived in the U.S. for about a decade with a green card, I understand that my wife who was never a U.S. citizen has to pay taxes for ten years. WTF? How is that even legal? Why does Germany put up with that? How can the U.S. demand that she pay taxes for ten years?
Maybe, perhaps, she can just "not pay"... but then they'll probably arrest her or me when we visit my parents.
And more cheaply than in the US, I might add.
Price != Cost
If you want to let the private sector take care of education, road maintenance, defense, and health care, then move to some place like Somalia or Afghanistan where that's effectively the case.
After 30 years of communist rule, Somalia was ruled by warlords and Islamists (aka Muslim socialists). The current "internationally recognized" government is secular socialist. Afghanistan was ruled by communists, then unelected Islamists, and now elected Islamists. There is no "private sector" to speak of in either country. Everything is confiscated in the name of the state, the religion, or both.
No, you get no choice.
Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious!
That's the price of living in a society with civil institutions.
No, it's not. It's the "price" of living in a country that steals from its own people and then justifies it in the name of "civilization".
Again, if you don't like it, Somalia beckons... go there for a taste of anarchy.
How the hell is a failed communist state an example of what not paying taxes looks like?
That business could affect you in many other ways
Unlike the government...?
By polluting, through monopolistic market manipulation, through buying legislation, ... I'm sure you can think of many more.
Pollution can only be solved when people are wealthy enough to afford products made cleanly. China has a state-run economy, and yet pollution is rampant. The Soviet Union had a massive pollution problem. Governments don't solve these problems, wealth does.
What legislation can a business buy in a government that has no power to grant it favors?
Yes, that's the cynical view that's easy to promote via sound bites.
Statistics are cynical, now? The only reason you believe the system is accountable to you is because you are blind to its flaws. You are judging by intentions, not outcomes.
However, I would much rather live in a society like Canada's with our democratic system (flawed though it may be) than in any other society.
There really aren't a whole lot of choices. There's democratic socialism, communist kleptocracy, and brutal theocracy.
And migration patterns show that most people agree and vote with their feet.
You really don't get the whole "correlation is not causation" thing, do you? Countries like Canada and the US are the only ones that even make a pretense of private property and the preservation of wealth. That doesn't mean you have the right system, only the least wrong one.
I can go to a doctor and not be out of pocket. That's free.
No, it's not. The cost is paid indirectly, but it is still paid. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Now as for the taxation cost, that's a hell of a lot cheaper than private systems and better quality,
What private systems? Oh you mean the United States? The heavily regulated, mostly state-funded, highly corrupt system that will soon have state-run health insurance? Yeah, that's a private system alright.
I don't have to worry about the triage nurse having to do a credit check before stopping the bleeding.
Hospitals want you to die, don't you know? That's why they hire doctors and nurses, so that people will die right at their doorsteps! If you believe that people won't help you unless they're forced to do so, then you have a morally bankrupt view of the world. Why would you even want their help?
And you use the exact same assertion without evidence, except you're also using an appeal to authority.
What assertion? What authority? Are you arguing against what I wrote, or what you thought I wrote?
You can leave.
Such a welcoming attitude! Tolerance and diversity, all around.
Farewell and I wish you luck in your libertarian paradise, if you can find one that isn't a despotic nightmare.
There is no such thing as paradise. The first rule of economics is scarcity.
LoL, many businesses are set up that you cant do that.
You mean, you can't stop paying them and still receive the service they provide? Yeah, things have a cost, that's why they're not free.
Don't like the way petrol companies are colluding, erm... Public telco's, well they're the only one operating in your area.
And yet every attempt by the government to solve these problems only exacerbates them. Every once in a while, we're treated to the government solving problems by creating new ones! Price fixing and gasoline rationing worked out great in the 1970s.
As above, you can leave.
You first. No, I insist.
Even getting off the grid and living in some cabin in the woods would get you out of it.
What woods? Half the forests are owned by the government, and the other half you'd have to pay property taxes (= rent to the government) on.
However you simply dont want to because it would require you to give up too many creature comforts you've grown accustomed to.
I'll pay for them. What you can't accept is that I will pay for the things I want, and not pay for the things I don't want. It's choice that you don't want me to have.
This is less of a case of the GPP being wrong and more of a case of "waaahhhhh the world is not as I would like it"
What is the point of democracy if everybody is supposed to vote the same way?
Well grow up and get over it.
Yes, grow up and worship the state. Surely, you will find absolution in its bosom.