That's incorrect - a tester follows a test plan and performs the test steps.
- aha. And a developer follows a design and performs necessary steps to build the software.
And a BA follows necessary steps to collect all of the necessary business requirements.
And a DBA follows necessary steps to ensure that the data model is correct and the database configuration makes sense for the project.
And a PM follows the best practices and whatever steps to ensure that the project is on time and within the budget and it delivers what it promises.
And the sales follow the necessary steps to ensure the customers are buying what they believe they need.
And the marketing follows the necessary steps to ensure that the offerings are of value to the customers, partners, clients and what not.
The top management follows the necessary steps to direct the company towards a successful vision, etc.
And no company fails to achieve its goals. And no project fails. And no design decision is amiss. And no developer makes mistakes. And QAs never find the unexpected.
And banks don't fail. And governments don't fail. And Challenger didn't blow up. And countries don't fail.
Give me a break. Things don't work the way they are 'supposed' to, a good QA will catch problems even if nobody thought of them and whatever plan that everybody thinks is the shit today, is shit tomorrow, just not that kind of shit. Even in the banks and insurance companies and investment businesses and medical companies and utilities and manufacturers and telecommunications and who knows what else.
The truth is that if one wants to find out what software does under different conditions, he shouldn't go the designer or the developer, he should go straight to the tester.
The job of a tester is to put together a meaningful plan - understand how the software is going to correspond to the business needs and test the main logical paths as well as some optional and failure paths and find out what the software really does as opposed to what people think it should do.
If the difference between what the software does and what is required is such, that the business will suffer because of it, this should be fixed, so this goes back to the developers.
Testers prepare test plans and test the software.
Good testers prepare the data and seed it, so that it is the same at the start of similar tests in each iteration.
Intelligent testers use various tools so that they don't do this by hand.
Excellent testers figure out what the business needs and actually provide good user-like (but better) feedback to the development.
coming from the perfect example of a country that tried to implement it but utterly failed
- nonsense, we had absolute socialism. USSR didn't have Communism, it was always a '5 year away' goal, but the system was as close to near perfect socialism as any other system ever implemented. It certainly prevented any legal private enterprise, all 'business' was government ran, and supposedly the government was set by the people, but of-course that was total nonsense. We had so called workers rights and unions and every right anybody can imagine was in the books. We had no capitalists at all (not legally anyway, there were always black markets, because that's what happens when money really means nothing).
Health care, having a job, being "educated", having shelter, etc. - all these were considered RIGHTS (whatever that word means in a system that didn't have independent just courts and judges).
All business was centrally planned, all factories, mines, farms, everything was 'collectively owned', all economic and social planning was done by government bureaucrats, legal free markets didn't exist, though there were black markets.
Competing with government in any way was illegal, from creating wealth, as in owning property and using it to produce something of value to sell later, to be able to trade in real money or in any competing currency, all this was completely illegal. All resources were nationally owned. Science was directed to 'serve the people', as well as every other type of profession.
We even had 'elections', or whatever passed for elections, when your elections choices are limited to 1, but you can vote 'against', not that it meant anything.
But that was maximum socialism, nobody ever got as close to socialism, government planning as former USSR, and then Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Somalia and some other nations, but USSR was definitely on top of that ladder.
So you can say whatever anywhere you want, but this historic revisionism will not fly here.
However, many countries have different levels of state participation in the economy â" and for many, it has worked great.
- not in the long term. All those states that have forms of socialism are either moving towards bankruptcy in the long term (Greece as an example), or they are moving away from socialism and towards more and more free market capitalism (Denmark-Norway).
I won't detail into the importance of the land communalization in Mexico between the late 1920s and 1990s, but it drastically helped level out wealth distribution.
- I don't care about your particular situation, I can definitely talk about Ukraine and the way the farm collectivisation destroyed the country, killed over 30 million Ukrainians back in years 1929 to 1933. I have my own family history to look at, with all the nationalisation of farms and the related displacements and deaths, I don't need revisionists to tell me what's what.
And yes, as an academic, quoting you, I don't actually produce any of the wealth that allowed the real taxes to be paid in the first place. However, we produce the knowledge that is needed for the country to function, to advance and to form an industry that actually produces that wealth.
- and surely you are the one deciding what your economy and market actually needs then, yes? Because you are all pro-taxes that pay your salary.
Mexico is suffering from the detrimental US led drug war, but it is also gaining something from the fact that USA has such insane mix of socialist/fascist politics right now, and all the counterfeiting, taxes and regulations cause anybody with actual savings and investment capital to move their productive capacity out of US, I know I did. So any kind of gain that Mexico has seeing over the last 40 years has to do with investment capital leaving USA and moving anywhere, including Mexico, but it's never due to any socialist leaning
Whay was it so polluted then and why is it no longer?
- because government has been in collusion with large businesses for a very long time, allowing them to do whatever they wanted by covering their liability and explicitly giving them licenses to do as they wanted to, all while "owning" all that "public" property that should not be in the hands of the government but must be auctioned off, and thus it would have one or more actual owners, and then it would be only a case of owners protecting their property. Even if one owner in fact was able to buy an entire river, the water would still go into other people's property and that could be immediately addressed by a court, and this is what government is supposed to be doing - not helping people to pollute by taking away their responsibility (and that's what all cases of pollution are based on), but the gov't would have to protect private property rights.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2
You are only correct on one thing: the courts are completely corrupt and will not look at evidence, everything else you have no clue on.
So called 'income taxes' are based on voluntary compliance, not on 'mandatory compliance'. Laws based on voluntary compliance are not by definition laws. There is no such thing as income tax liability, it's a fraudulent claim.
Income taxes must be voluntary, otherwise they are illegal. Compulsory income tax violates all three taxing clauses of the Constitution, requiring people to incriminate themselves disregards the Bill of Rights, first ten amendments must be disregarded to collect it. Compulsory income tax violates the 16th amendment itself.
The Code does not use word 'income', there is no definition of income, however it does define 'profit'.
There are direct and indirect taxes defined by the Constitution.
Constitution does say that direct taxes must be apportioned based on sensus, income tax falls into category of direct taxes, before direct taxes can be apportioned the gov't must declare exactly how much it is intending to collect, then percentage of the fixed amount is supposed to be apportioned to separate States proportionate to State population, then different tax rates would apply in different States to collect the apportioned amounts. Direct taxes cannot be avoided.
THAT would be Constitutional.
Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned, they are things like sales and excise taxes, they allow people to chose to pay or not pay them based on participation in trade. However indirect taxes must be geographically uniform. Constitution does mandate that if an excise is imposed on a product in one state, it must be imposed on similar basis in all states, but no total amount must be calculated by the government before indirect taxes are collected. The assumption was for the federal gov't to run on indirect taxes and only use direct taxes to fund wars and other emergencies.
Income tax is neither levied as an apportioned tax nor as a 'duty, impost or excise', it falls outside of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and thus it cannot be levied as a mandatory tax.
Income taxes violate the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment mandates that "right of people to be secure in their persons, houses and papers.. shall not be violated" except "upon probable cause" with a valid warrant.
The Fifth Amendment bars gov't from forcing Americans "to be a witness against himself" and bars gov't from depriving Americans "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
(of course NDAA is signed, so whatever, your POTUS can kill you and hold you indefinitely now, so I KNOW that Constitution is out of the window, however I base my arguments on the law that must apply to the government, there is no other law even though it's completely broken).
BTW., "due process" means a fair hearing, before an impartial judge, obviously this clause has been killed by the government 100 years ago, there is no due process.
IRS agents seize property, land, homes, etc., without any hearing or court orders, they auction the property off to satisfy fictitious gov't claims. Often they seize property belonging to one party to satisfy alleged tax 'owed' by another. Denial of due process is compound, no proof is ever presented to any court that: 1. The tax is allegedly owed or in fact owed 2. The property seized belonged not to the person possessing it, but to some other person allegedly owing the tax.
So money from children's bank accounts are stolen by IRS agents claiming that it's really parent's money, etc.
Then there is a long matter concerning the so called 'tax courts' which are kangaroo courts in reality, IRS imposes 50% and more penalties on people who they didn't even prove to owe any taxes, property is confiscated on unproven civil fraud allegations and hearings in real courts are denied.
The Fifth Amendment means nobody can be compelled to be witness agai
Re:I'd love to be exempt from paying taxes...
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
But even given the high evasion in my country, I'm sure I'd live far worse if we didn't pay taxes.
- nonsense. You'd be much better off.
My taxes run my country.
- nonsense. Private enterprise and businesses run your country.
They pay for the public security, for the basic infrastructure.
- nonsense. Private enterprise and businesses pay for basic infrastructure and security.
Yes, they also pay the salaries of the people in government, and many people say those salaries are too high â" But guess what? I work at a public university, so those taxes pay my salary as well!
- so you are just part of the problem. There shouldn't be any public universities.
If you want to know how a country where no taxes are paid, take a look at life in Somalia, where there is no effective government.
- nonsense. Somalia is a result of decades of subsidised 'communist' government that finally was overthrown as people got fed up with it, and it's in transition, it has multiple levels of government, just not one central system.
Or to any country poor enough to still have a barter-based economy, or with most families living off their own produce, effectively cut off the "evil" government control.
- nonsense. It was never government that created wealth that let people to stop being subsistence farming, it was always capitalism and free market enterprise. Everywhere.
Yes, not being an USA citizen makes me not have to blush when I proclaim I am a Socialist.
- I am not a US citizen either. I was born in the former USSR and lived in Canada and US and now in Europe and Asia, and I proclaim that Socialism is one of the worst system, on par with Fascism. The differences between them are insignificant because the similarities are so unbearable.
I prefer paying more taxes
- obviously you don't pay actual taxes, you are on government payroll and thus you don't actually produce anything that really pays taxes. Even though your salary is taxed nominally, you didn't actually produce any of the wealth that allowed the real taxes to be paid in the first place. You like others to pay more taxes because you live off their labour.
That's the only way to get a fairer society.
- nonsense. That makes a society where some use others as their slaves by proxy of the government. The only way to have a fair society is not to allow government to steal fruits of labour of individuals who actually produce wealth and only tax consumption, which allows the society to have the necessary savings and investment capital to create the real wealth distribution system, the way free market capitalism does it. Government spending must be moderated by people's spending, not by people's savings and ability of government to borrow based on the assumed future production of the people (government borrowing) or to have government operate based on a different type of theft of money - counterfeiting.
- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA L:>!!!:AH AHAHAH AHHA HA HA
Who are you, fucker, who the fuck are you, that you think you 'deserve' somebody's money after they die? You are one sick piece of shit, that's for sure.
Re:Don't you have real estate taxes in the USA?
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Of course I didn't like it, but of course I believe it is fair.
- that's because you are a sheep, or more correctly you are a cow and you are being milked, and the worst part is - you think it's fair.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
That used to be a problem before the government decided to steal your freedoms and to acquire plenty of military equipment to put down any attempt at such a 'violent revolution' and before people could move from country to country almost as quickly as their capital.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
When you work for somebody you make a salary, but do you have 'profit'?
In reality the income tax is only applicable to what is called 'profit' and it only applies to corporations, and the salary is not a profit, there can be no tax on it, so the entire idea of taxing personal income is a ruse, it's completely illegal.
Beyond that, the income taxes are collected 'voluntarily', but you have the right not to incriminate against yourself, but try and not file your income taxes, you will be prosecuted by IRS as if you had to incriminate against yourself.
Anyway, all income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, wealth taxes, capitation taxes, capital gains taxes, all of it needs to go the way of a Dodo bird, this is all completely wrong, it allows the government to grow not based on total spending allocated by individuals, but based on their work and perceived income value, which allows the government to grow uncontrollably, especially when it starts borrowing against people's future earnings (that's what Treasury debt is,) and all this counterfeiting, which is completely illegal.
You should read up on the massive exodus from Russia as it became the former USSR, the country was left without any industry, completely destroyed, it's the ultimate effect of doing what you propose.
Government should not be always 'bigger and stronger than corporations', government should only have one thing: support of the public. A company can definitely have a much bigger budget than a government and many do, it does NOT make those companies government, unless the population doesn't care who actually governs them, and then what's the difference exactly? That's what you have now - people not giving a shit, so they absolutely deserve the government they have.
You are intellectually bankrupt, since you can't even see a metaphor for what it is. Putting a gun to the head of a zombie bank or a zombie corporations does not mean an actual projectile weapon, (expletive deleted), it means the end to the public support in the form of free government credit and insurance to those bankrupt organisations and it means a fire sale of all government held assets of those zombie banks and corporations.
They would self destruct within day or hours or even minutes, just like US zombie banks and corporations would, and given some of the Japanese traditions reserved for such cases of false sense of 'dishonour' I would be at all surprised to hear about multiple suicides among the former chief executives of those failed enterprises.
Now go do something that you can really consider to be useful, like count hairs in your nose or something.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
- precisely the libertarian position.
. There's no reason whatever why you can't have both liberty and good social structures.
- yes there is. It's called private property and liberty not to be robbed by the majority of the fruits of one's labour.
"Socialist" Europe seems to be freer in most respect than we Americans.
- Europe may seem to be 'freer' only to those, who are not familiar with what that 'freedom' entails. Now, I am not going to compare US and Europe, to me, all of those (excluding Switzerland) are completely corrupt and in a serious need of a freedom reform.
Who do you think wants this "socialist" authoritarianism? THE GOD DAMNED CORPORATIONS!
- the power to steal freedoms from people and sell them to corporations is in the hands of government, and the ability of government to do so unchallenged is in the hands of population, who doesn't care to put only those to power, who actually follow the Constitution, which is the law above government that prevents this power grab and sale.
Aside from the right to smoke dope, the only freedoms Paul are after are the freedoms to screw workers, wreck the environment, and screw corporate "consumers".
- this is all BS. Only real property rights really protect environment, not government in any way. Only real market regulations - real money and price of money and contract law protects consumers, not government regulations.
Most of the repressive laws that have been written in my not short life have been passed by conservatives.
- by Republicans, not conservatives. The last conservative to run for President besides Ron Paul was Barry Goldwater and he lost to Lyndon Johnson because of BS. negative advertising, insinuating that Goldwater would be 'weak on national defence'.
Well, I am not a Japanese and don't even speak the language, but should they seek outside assistance in kicking the bad habits and turning the economy around, I can provide the advice and direction for a very small fee (relative to the huge economic boost that will be created) indeed. Nobody in Europe and US is really listening, in fact most of the world is doing the same damn thing - destroying their own purchasing power and thus economy and society in the worthless bloody currency war, nobody seems to understand the real economics.
But I actually think that out of many other people, Japanese could really thrive because of the strange mentality, which they would adhere to, if they were basically told - this is what you do.
I'd set a simple enough 1 year plan to reduce the regulation register, get rid of income taxes, reduce government spending, allow competition in currency and privatise most of assets that the government holds publicly, and within a year the economy would turn around and would experience a massive boom with tons of people fighting to put their savings into that economy and hundreds of thousands of professional immigrants trying to enter the country to work there and various businesses would spring to life.
But of-course I would put a gun to the heads of the zombie banks and corporations, they would be liquidated within weeks and I don't give a shit how many suicides would follow that necessary cleansing.
What can I tell you, I spent plenty of time in Germany within the last 2.5 years, I don't do too much business here, it's just a place I spend time in except for a number of other places, where I spend time and do business (and I moved almost all business out of North America), but I do what I do specifically to avoid the mix of socialism/fascism that is permeating USA, and I see Asia as a much freer market to work with and it is proving to be the case. I pay for the health care out of pocket and have a health insurance in case something very bad and very expensive actually happens, which is what health insurance is supposed to be in the first place. I worked and studied back in my school and later college and university years, always paying out of pocket with the money I actually earned to do all that studying, and no, I never see entitlements for some and obligations upon others as 'rights', thus it is never a 'human right' to expect the collective to provide anybody with any product and or service.
You can pretend that your socialist ideology has nothing to do with totalitarianism and dictatorship, but you will only be able to lie to yourself, not to people who see it for what it is, and especially not to people who lived through it, and I have.'
Socialism is only possible with a strong dictatorial control gby government power and I am as uninterested in socialism as I am in fascism and to me their differences are so irrelevant because their similarities are so unbearable.
I say no to any form of government controlled health care, social security, wars, wage and price fixing, control of money, regulations of business, destruction of individual liberties and freedoms and all forms of 'social safety nets'. These are all immoral and unjust and must be fought with every bit of strength we can master to prevent us being slaves of that system.
Schiff's bizarre and self-contradictory farrago of truths, half-truths, and outright lies
- you can say whatever you like, but none of it is factual.
For example I can say about your post: "this half brained comment indicates that the poster is mentally challenged and is also a Marxist sympathiser, which makes him dangerous for the well being of economy and by extension of the society, we should all pay attention to this posters and make sure to isolate him as soon as possible to prevent the inevitable repercussions of his ideology as it takes hold of the feeble minds of the public in various public forums."
Does that mean that everything that is said above is true and correct? It doesn't mean such a thing, but it would put you on a defensive.
--
a vast and self-righteous greed
- translation: complete and unapologetic understanding of economics and ability to use that understanding over the past 20 years to make a multi-million dollar fortune from scratch.
expressed as a desire to bear no part of the cost of civilization
- translation: strict adherence to the principles of private property and individual liberty that allows Mr. Schiff to make money for his clients and for himself, thus ensuring that their personal wealth is not destroyed and is saved from the whims of the crowd represented by the so called 'democracy', which in reality is the dictatorship of the mob, which is only voting itself to steal from others and give to themselves, to maintain their 'bread and circuses' way of life.
evulsion for any moral or ethical conduct that might conceivably cause loss of personal wealth.
- translation: basing the moral code on the only meaningful standard - adherence to the individual rights of property and liberty, denouncement of the ability of the collective to destroy the individual.
He has deified the worse aspects of his own character and expects all of us to worship at his altar.
- translation: he has successfully predicted the debt bubbles of the dot-com era, the housing bubble and the incoming currency and bond bubble, which allowed him to make money for his clients and for himself and now he owns a number of businesses specialising in ensuring that his clients are unaffected by the destruction of the economy caused by the political system of bread and circuses.
He admits openly that he will do everything he can to betray his own country economically whenever he can find a foreign land that will allow him to treat his workers in a way that he himself is clearly unwilling to be treated.
- translation: he firmly adheres to the principle of voluntarism and non-violence, he is only interested in the market pricing of everything, including the pricing of labour. He owns parts of various businesses, for example oil extraction business that uses modern technology of hydraulic fracturing in order to achieve much better efficiencies. He owns equity in various income producing companies around the world and he owns real money - gold, silver. He is absolutely dead set on making sure that his clients and himself are sheltered from the incoming economic collapse that will be caused by the central planning and bills of credit issuing authority the way he understands it . He sees it not only as his fiduciary obligation but also as his moral obligation to protect investments of his clients and of his own against the immoral and illegal behaviour of the government systems.
He has either never heard of the Categorical Imperative, or is incapable of comprehending its pragmatic utility.
- translation: he is unbending in his quest for personal freedom and liberty, and he is fully aware that this can only be achieved by completely denying the power of the collective over the rights of the individual (and obviously he is absolutely unabash
I am placing the blame on the people who have not held the government to the standard, the only standard that matters - only electing people who strictly adhere to the law above the government - the US Constitution, which would have prevented all of the nonsense, from IRS with all types of income taxes and Fed with money printing and fixing price of money (interest rates) and FDIC and minimum wage and SS and Medicare, to permanent wars and Patriot Act and NDAA and ACTA and DMCA and eventually SOPA and this bill and everything else.
Deflation is the boogeyman that the politicians like to throw around, covering themselves with the nonsense propagated by the Keynesian charlatans. Deflation is what Japan SHOULD have, because of how productive Japan is, but instead it has inflation, which is what government creates with all the money printing.
Were it not for the government actions of the last 20 years, Japanese would have 5 times more purchasing power and prices would have been much lower in Japan. Instead the purchasing power is stolen from the people and the prices are not falling as they should be and the investment capital and savings of the world are not coming into Japan, all of which is a big negative for that stagnating economy.
Japan NEEDS deflation, instead it's using US advised idiocy of inflating the currency in order to 'export more', which of-course is simply a way for companies to lower the prices of their products without showing it on the corporate balance sheets and thus still enjoy large nominal bonuses at the end of the year.
What those companies should do, if they are so interested in more exports, is to compete more on quality and price and the government must be prohibited from printing money and then Japan would enjoy a real huge boom - lots of savings and investments that would not be destroyed by inflation and low prices.
private companies would be free to do much worse under the banner of "individual liberty."
- There is nothing that a private company can do that can ever compare to what a dictatorial totalitarian government can do and has done and is doing.
Government has the structure, the power and the legitimacy to operate in a way that is similarly legitimate, after all, the MSM and the courts and the police and the army is under the control of government and no private company can control people in this way, and even if a private company becomes de-facto government, it then is no longer just a company - it's either a dictatorship or it is a democracy of some sort with elections, etc.
Government is what governs, and it is up to the people to decide who governs them, and currently it looks like the people of USA have decided.
Slashdot Mirror
What this agent did was actually a minor correction of the fraud and crime that IRS is involved with on the daily basis.
That's incorrect - a tester follows a test plan and performs the test steps.
- aha. And a developer follows a design and performs necessary steps to build the software.
And a BA follows necessary steps to collect all of the necessary business requirements.
And a DBA follows necessary steps to ensure that the data model is correct and the database configuration makes sense for the project.
And a PM follows the best practices and whatever steps to ensure that the project is on time and within the budget and it delivers what it promises.
And the sales follow the necessary steps to ensure the customers are buying what they believe they need.
And the marketing follows the necessary steps to ensure that the offerings are of value to the customers, partners, clients and what not.
The top management follows the necessary steps to direct the company towards a successful vision, etc.
And no company fails to achieve its goals.
And no project fails.
And no design decision is amiss.
And no developer makes mistakes.
And QAs never find the unexpected.
And banks don't fail.
And governments don't fail.
And Challenger didn't blow up.
And countries don't fail.
Give me a break. Things don't work the way they are 'supposed' to, a good QA will catch problems even if nobody thought of them and whatever plan that everybody thinks is the shit today, is shit tomorrow, just not that kind of shit. Even in the banks and insurance companies and investment businesses and medical companies and utilities and manufacturers and telecommunications and who knows what else.
The truth is that if one wants to find out what software does under different conditions, he shouldn't go the designer or the developer, he should go straight to the tester.
The job of a tester is to put together a meaningful plan - understand how the software is going to correspond to the business needs and test the main logical paths as well as some optional and failure paths and find out what the software really does as opposed to what people think it should do.
If the difference between what the software does and what is required is such, that the business will suffer because of it, this should be fixed, so this goes back to the developers.
Testers prepare test plans and test the software.
Good testers prepare the data and seed it, so that it is the same at the start of similar tests in each iteration.
Intelligent testers use various tools so that they don't do this by hand.
Excellent testers figure out what the business needs and actually provide good user-like (but better) feedback to the development.
coming from the perfect example of a country that tried to implement it but utterly failed
- nonsense, we had absolute socialism. USSR didn't have Communism, it was always a '5 year away' goal, but the system was as close to near perfect socialism as any other system ever implemented. It certainly prevented any legal private enterprise, all 'business' was government ran, and supposedly the government was set by the people, but of-course that was total nonsense. We had so called workers rights and unions and every right anybody can imagine was in the books. We had no capitalists at all (not legally anyway, there were always black markets, because that's what happens when money really means nothing).
Health care, having a job, being "educated", having shelter, etc. - all these were considered RIGHTS (whatever that word means in a system that didn't have independent just courts and judges).
All business was centrally planned, all factories, mines, farms, everything was 'collectively owned', all economic and social planning was done by government bureaucrats, legal free markets didn't exist, though there were black markets.
Competing with government in any way was illegal, from creating wealth, as in owning property and using it to produce something of value to sell later, to be able to trade in real money or in any competing currency, all this was completely illegal. All resources were nationally owned. Science was directed to 'serve the people', as well as every other type of profession.
We even had 'elections', or whatever passed for elections, when your elections choices are limited to 1, but you can vote 'against', not that it meant anything.
But that was maximum socialism, nobody ever got as close to socialism, government planning as former USSR, and then Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Somalia and some other nations, but USSR was definitely on top of that ladder.
So you can say whatever anywhere you want, but this historic revisionism will not fly here.
However, many countries have different levels of state participation in the economy â" and for many, it has worked great.
- not in the long term. All those states that have forms of socialism are either moving towards bankruptcy in the long term (Greece as an example), or they are moving away from socialism and towards more and more free market capitalism (Denmark-Norway).
I won't detail into the importance of the land communalization in Mexico between the late 1920s and 1990s, but it drastically helped level out wealth distribution.
- I don't care about your particular situation, I can definitely talk about Ukraine and the way the farm collectivisation destroyed the country, killed over 30 million Ukrainians back in years 1929 to 1933. I have my own family history to look at, with all the nationalisation of farms and the related displacements and deaths, I don't need revisionists to tell me what's what.
And yes, as an academic, quoting you, I don't actually produce any of the wealth that allowed the real taxes to be paid in the first place. However, we produce the knowledge that is needed for the country to function, to advance and to form an industry that actually produces that wealth.
- and surely you are the one deciding what your economy and market actually needs then, yes? Because you are all pro-taxes that pay your salary.
Mexico is suffering from the detrimental US led drug war, but it is also gaining something from the fact that USA has such insane mix of socialist/fascist politics right now, and all the counterfeiting, taxes and regulations cause anybody with actual savings and investment capital to move their productive capacity out of US, I know I did. So any kind of gain that Mexico has seeing over the last 40 years has to do with investment capital leaving USA and moving anywhere, including Mexico, but it's never due to any socialist leaning
Whay was it so polluted then and why is it no longer?
- because government has been in collusion with large businesses for a very long time, allowing them to do whatever they wanted by covering their liability and explicitly giving them licenses to do as they wanted to, all while "owning" all that "public" property that should not be in the hands of the government but must be auctioned off, and thus it would have one or more actual owners, and then it would be only a case of owners protecting their property. Even if one owner in fact was able to buy an entire river, the water would still go into other people's property and that could be immediately addressed by a court, and this is what government is supposed to be doing - not helping people to pollute by taking away their responsibility (and that's what all cases of pollution are based on), but the gov't would have to protect private property rights.
You are only correct on one thing: the courts are completely corrupt and will not look at evidence, everything else you have no clue on.
So called 'income taxes' are based on voluntary compliance, not on 'mandatory compliance'. Laws based on voluntary compliance are not by definition laws. There is no such thing as income tax liability, it's a fraudulent claim.
Income taxes must be voluntary, otherwise they are illegal. Compulsory income tax violates all three taxing clauses of the Constitution, requiring people to incriminate themselves disregards the Bill of Rights, first ten amendments must be disregarded to collect it. Compulsory income tax violates the 16th amendment itself.
The Code does not use word 'income', there is no definition of income, however it does define 'profit'.
There are direct and indirect taxes defined by the Constitution.
Constitution does say that direct taxes must be apportioned based on sensus, income tax falls into category of direct taxes, before direct taxes can be apportioned the gov't must declare exactly how much it is intending to collect, then percentage of the fixed amount is supposed to be apportioned to separate States proportionate to State population, then different tax rates would apply in different States to collect the apportioned amounts. Direct taxes cannot be avoided.
THAT would be Constitutional.
Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned, they are things like sales and excise taxes, they allow people to chose to pay or not pay them based on participation in trade. However indirect taxes must be geographically uniform. Constitution does mandate that if an excise is imposed on a product in one state, it must be imposed on similar basis in all states, but no total amount must be calculated by the government before indirect taxes are collected. The assumption was for the federal gov't to run on indirect taxes and only use direct taxes to fund wars and other emergencies.
Income tax is neither levied as an apportioned tax nor as a 'duty, impost or excise', it falls outside of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and thus it cannot be levied as a mandatory tax.
Income taxes violate the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment mandates that "right of people to be secure in their persons, houses and papers .. shall not be violated" except "upon probable cause" with a valid warrant.
The Fifth Amendment bars gov't from forcing Americans "to be a witness against himself" and bars gov't from depriving Americans "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
(of course NDAA is signed, so whatever, your POTUS can kill you and hold you indefinitely now, so I KNOW that Constitution is out of the window, however I base my arguments on the law that must apply to the government, there is no other law even though it's completely broken).
BTW., "due process" means a fair hearing, before an impartial judge, obviously this clause has been killed by the government 100 years ago, there is no due process.
IRS agents seize property, land, homes, etc., without any hearing or court orders, they auction the property off to satisfy fictitious gov't claims. Often they seize property belonging to one party to satisfy alleged tax 'owed' by another. Denial of due process is compound, no proof is ever presented to any court that:
1. The tax is allegedly owed or in fact owed
2. The property seized belonged not to the person possessing it, but to some other person allegedly owing the tax.
So money from children's bank accounts are stolen by IRS agents claiming that it's really parent's money, etc.
Then there is a long matter concerning the so called 'tax courts' which are kangaroo courts in reality, IRS imposes 50% and more penalties on people who they didn't even prove to owe any taxes, property is confiscated on unproven civil fraud allegations and hearings in real courts are denied.
The Fifth Amendment means nobody can be compelled to be witness agai
But even given the high evasion in my country, I'm sure I'd live far worse if we didn't pay taxes.
- nonsense. You'd be much better off.
My taxes run my country.
- nonsense. Private enterprise and businesses run your country.
They pay for the public security, for the basic infrastructure.
- nonsense. Private enterprise and businesses pay for basic infrastructure and security.
Yes, they also pay the salaries of the people in government, and many people say those salaries are too high â" But guess what? I work at a public university, so those taxes pay my salary as well!
- so you are just part of the problem. There shouldn't be any public universities.
If you want to know how a country where no taxes are paid, take a look at life in Somalia, where there is no effective government.
- nonsense. Somalia is a result of decades of subsidised 'communist' government that finally was overthrown as people got fed up with it, and it's in transition, it has multiple levels of government, just not one central system.
Or to any country poor enough to still have a barter-based economy, or with most families living off their own produce, effectively cut off the "evil" government control.
- nonsense. It was never government that created wealth that let people to stop being subsistence farming, it was always capitalism and free market enterprise. Everywhere.
Yes, not being an USA citizen makes me not have to blush when I proclaim I am a Socialist.
- I am not a US citizen either. I was born in the former USSR and lived in Canada and US and now in Europe and Asia, and I proclaim that Socialism is one of the worst system, on par with Fascism. The differences between them are insignificant because the similarities are so unbearable.
I prefer paying more taxes
- obviously you don't pay actual taxes, you are on government payroll and thus you don't actually produce anything that really pays taxes. Even though your salary is taxed nominally, you didn't actually produce any of the wealth that allowed the real taxes to be paid in the first place. You like others to pay more taxes because you live off their labour.
That's the only way to get a fairer society.
- nonsense. That makes a society where some use others as their slaves by proxy of the government. The only way to have a fair society is not to allow government to steal fruits of labour of individuals who actually produce wealth and only tax consumption, which allows the society to have the necessary savings and investment capital to create the real wealth distribution system, the way free market capitalism does it. Government spending must be moderated by people's spending, not by people's savings and ability of government to borrow based on the assumed future production of the people (government borrowing) or to have government operate based on a different type of theft of money - counterfeiting.
No, that literally is what USSR did, it's just their level of 'wealth taxation' was higher than you are proposing CURRENTLY.
They deserve money, but so do we.
- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA L:>!!! :AH AHAHAH AHHA HA HA
Who are you, fucker, who the fuck are you, that you think you 'deserve' somebody's money after they die? You are one sick piece of shit, that's for sure.
Of course I didn't like it, but of course I believe it is fair.
- that's because you are a sheep, or more correctly you are a cow and you are being milked, and the worst part is - you think it's fair.
That used to be a problem before the government decided to steal your freedoms and to acquire plenty of military equipment to put down any attempt at such a 'violent revolution' and before people could move from country to country almost as quickly as their capital.
When you work for somebody you make a salary, but do you have 'profit'?
In reality the income tax is only applicable to what is called 'profit' and it only applies to corporations, and the salary is not a profit, there can be no tax on it, so the entire idea of taxing personal income is a ruse, it's completely illegal.
Beyond that, the income taxes are collected 'voluntarily', but you have the right not to incriminate against yourself, but try and not file your income taxes, you will be prosecuted by IRS as if you had to incriminate against yourself.
Anyway, all income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, wealth taxes, capitation taxes, capital gains taxes, all of it needs to go the way of a Dodo bird, this is all completely wrong, it allows the government to grow not based on total spending allocated by individuals, but based on their work and perceived income value, which allows the government to grow uncontrollably, especially when it starts borrowing against people's future earnings (that's what Treasury debt is,) and all this counterfeiting, which is completely illegal.
Do it. I'd make millions providing mercenary services to thousands of people to protect against the likes of you.
You should read up on the massive exodus from Russia as it became the former USSR, the country was left without any industry, completely destroyed, it's the ultimate effect of doing what you propose.
Government should not be always 'bigger and stronger than corporations', government should only have one thing: support of the public. A company can definitely have a much bigger budget than a government and many do, it does NOT make those companies government, unless the population doesn't care who actually governs them, and then what's the difference exactly? That's what you have now - people not giving a shit, so they absolutely deserve the government they have.
You are intellectually bankrupt, since you can't even see a metaphor for what it is. Putting a gun to the head of a zombie bank or a zombie corporations does not mean an actual projectile weapon, (expletive deleted), it means the end to the public support in the form of free government credit and insurance to those bankrupt organisations and it means a fire sale of all government held assets of those zombie banks and corporations.
They would self destruct within day or hours or even minutes, just like US zombie banks and corporations would, and given some of the Japanese traditions reserved for such cases of false sense of 'dishonour' I would be at all surprised to hear about multiple suicides among the former chief executives of those failed enterprises.
Now go do something that you can really consider to be useful, like count hairs in your nose or something.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
- precisely the libertarian position.
. There's no reason whatever why you can't have both liberty and good social structures.
- yes there is. It's called private property and liberty not to be robbed by the majority of the fruits of one's labour.
"Socialist" Europe seems to be freer in most respect than we Americans.
- Europe may seem to be 'freer' only to those, who are not familiar with what that 'freedom' entails. Now, I am not going to compare US and Europe, to me, all of those (excluding Switzerland) are completely corrupt and in a serious need of a freedom reform.
Who do you think wants this "socialist" authoritarianism? THE GOD DAMNED CORPORATIONS!
- the power to steal freedoms from people and sell them to corporations is in the hands of government, and the ability of government to do so unchallenged is in the hands of population, who doesn't care to put only those to power, who actually follow the Constitution, which is the law above government that prevents this power grab and sale.
Aside from the right to smoke dope, the only freedoms Paul are after are the freedoms to screw workers, wreck the environment, and screw corporate "consumers".
- this is all BS. Only real property rights really protect environment, not government in any way. Only real market regulations - real money and price of money and contract law protects consumers, not government regulations.
Most of the repressive laws that have been written in my not short life have been passed by conservatives.
- by Republicans, not conservatives. The last conservative to run for President besides Ron Paul was Barry Goldwater and he lost to Lyndon Johnson because of BS. negative advertising, insinuating that Goldwater would be 'weak on national defence'.
Well, I am not a Japanese and don't even speak the language, but should they seek outside assistance in kicking the bad habits and turning the economy around, I can provide the advice and direction for a very small fee (relative to the huge economic boost that will be created) indeed. Nobody in Europe and US is really listening, in fact most of the world is doing the same damn thing - destroying their own purchasing power and thus economy and society in the worthless bloody currency war, nobody seems to understand the real economics.
But I actually think that out of many other people, Japanese could really thrive because of the strange mentality, which they would adhere to, if they were basically told - this is what you do.
I'd set a simple enough 1 year plan to reduce the regulation register, get rid of income taxes, reduce government spending, allow competition in currency and privatise most of assets that the government holds publicly, and within a year the economy would turn around and would experience a massive boom with tons of people fighting to put their savings into that economy and hundreds of thousands of professional immigrants trying to enter the country to work there and various businesses would spring to life.
But of-course I would put a gun to the heads of the zombie banks and corporations, they would be liquidated within weeks and I don't give a shit how many suicides would follow that necessary cleansing.
Ok, but then you have to complete the deal and really present "Communist" China for what it is - the freest market on this planet.
What can I tell you, I spent plenty of time in Germany within the last 2.5 years, I don't do too much business here, it's just a place I spend time in except for a number of other places, where I spend time and do business (and I moved almost all business out of North America), but I do what I do specifically to avoid the mix of socialism/fascism that is permeating USA, and I see Asia as a much freer market to work with and it is proving to be the case. I pay for the health care out of pocket and have a health insurance in case something very bad and very expensive actually happens, which is what health insurance is supposed to be in the first place. I worked and studied back in my school and later college and university years, always paying out of pocket with the money I actually earned to do all that studying, and no, I never see entitlements for some and obligations upon others as 'rights', thus it is never a 'human right' to expect the collective to provide anybody with any product and or service.
You can pretend that your socialist ideology has nothing to do with totalitarianism and dictatorship, but you will only be able to lie to yourself, not to people who see it for what it is, and especially not to people who lived through it, and I have.'
Socialism is only possible with a strong dictatorial control gby government power and I am as uninterested in socialism as I am in fascism and to me their differences are so irrelevant because their similarities are so unbearable.
I say no to any form of government controlled health care, social security, wars, wage and price fixing, control of money, regulations of business, destruction of individual liberties and freedoms and all forms of 'social safety nets'. These are all immoral and unjust and must be fought with every bit of strength we can master to prevent us being slaves of that system.
Schiff's bizarre and self-contradictory farrago of truths, half-truths, and outright lies
- you can say whatever you like, but none of it is factual.
For example I can say about your post: "this half brained comment indicates that the poster is mentally challenged and is also a Marxist sympathiser, which makes him dangerous for the well being of economy and by extension of the society, we should all pay attention to this posters and make sure to isolate him as soon as possible to prevent the inevitable repercussions of his ideology as it takes hold of the feeble minds of the public in various public forums."
Does that mean that everything that is said above is true and correct? It doesn't mean such a thing, but it would put you on a defensive.
--
a vast and self-righteous greed
- translation: complete and unapologetic understanding of economics and ability to use that understanding over the past 20 years to make a multi-million dollar fortune from scratch.
expressed as a desire to bear no part of the cost of civilization
- translation: strict adherence to the principles of private property and individual liberty that allows Mr. Schiff to make money for his clients and for himself, thus ensuring that their personal wealth is not destroyed and is saved from the whims of the crowd represented by the so called 'democracy', which in reality is the dictatorship of the mob, which is only voting itself to steal from others and give to themselves, to maintain their 'bread and circuses' way of life.
evulsion for any moral or ethical conduct that might conceivably cause loss of personal wealth.
- translation: basing the moral code on the only meaningful standard - adherence to the individual rights of property and liberty, denouncement of the ability of the collective to destroy the individual.
He has deified the worse aspects of his own character and expects all of us to worship at his altar.
- translation: he has successfully predicted the debt bubbles of the dot-com era, the housing bubble and the incoming currency and bond bubble, which allowed him to make money for his clients and for himself and now he owns a number of businesses specialising in ensuring that his clients are unaffected by the destruction of the economy caused by the political system of bread and circuses.
He admits openly that he will do everything he can to betray his own country economically whenever he can find a foreign land that will allow him to treat his workers in a way that he himself is clearly unwilling to be treated.
- translation: he firmly adheres to the principle of voluntarism and non-violence, he is only interested in the market pricing of everything, including the pricing of labour. He owns parts of various businesses, for example oil extraction business that uses modern technology of hydraulic fracturing in order to achieve much better efficiencies. He owns equity in various income producing companies around the world and he owns real money - gold, silver. He is absolutely dead set on making sure that his clients and himself are sheltered from the incoming economic collapse that will be caused by the central planning and bills of credit issuing authority the way he understands it . He sees it not only as his fiduciary obligation but also as his moral obligation to protect investments of his clients and of his own against the immoral and illegal behaviour of the government systems.
He has either never heard of the Categorical Imperative, or is incapable of comprehending its pragmatic utility.
- translation: he is unbending in his quest for personal freedom and liberty, and he is fully aware that this can only be achieved by completely denying the power of the collective over the rights of the individual (and obviously he is absolutely unabash
I am placing the blame on the people who have not held the government to the standard, the only standard that matters - only electing people who strictly adhere to the law above the government - the US Constitution, which would have prevented all of the nonsense, from IRS with all types of income taxes and Fed with money printing and fixing price of money (interest rates) and FDIC and minimum wage and SS and Medicare, to permanent wars and Patriot Act and NDAA and ACTA and DMCA and eventually SOPA and this bill and everything else.
Deflation is the boogeyman that the politicians like to throw around, covering themselves with the nonsense propagated by the Keynesian charlatans. Deflation is what Japan SHOULD have, because of how productive Japan is, but instead it has inflation, which is what government creates with all the money printing.
Were it not for the government actions of the last 20 years, Japanese would have 5 times more purchasing power and prices would have been much lower in Japan. Instead the purchasing power is stolen from the people and the prices are not falling as they should be and the investment capital and savings of the world are not coming into Japan, all of which is a big negative for that stagnating economy.
Japan NEEDS deflation, instead it's using US advised idiocy of inflating the currency in order to 'export more', which of-course is simply a way for companies to lower the prices of their products without showing it on the corporate balance sheets and thus still enjoy large nominal bonuses at the end of the year.
What those companies should do, if they are so interested in more exports, is to compete more on quality and price and the government must be prohibited from printing money and then Japan would enjoy a real huge boom - lots of savings and investments that would not be destroyed by inflation and low prices.
private companies would be free to do much worse under the banner of "individual liberty."
- There is nothing that a private company can do that can ever compare to what a dictatorial totalitarian government can do and has done and is doing.
Government has the structure, the power and the legitimacy to operate in a way that is similarly legitimate, after all, the MSM and the courts and the police and the army is under the control of government and no private company can control people in this way, and even if a private company becomes de-facto government, it then is no longer just a company - it's either a dictatorship or it is a democracy of some sort with elections, etc.
Government is what governs, and it is up to the people to decide who governs them, and currently it looks like the people of USA have decided.