Where do you see higher ground exactly? Demanding that people / companies pay their taxes is the lower ground, it is bad morality and bad economics, it's not higher ground. People and companies shouldn't be paying any form of income or revenue or capital or savings related taxes, it's bad morality and worse economics.
AFAIC everybody who is making money should stop paying taxes altogether, that is the only moral and good thing to do and it is my not so humble opinion that theft and oppression through taxation is the most immoral the most stupid thing that people came up with in this reality, in this Universe.
People must be able to do whatever they please, to vaccinate or not, etc., it's their kids, their bodies. I prefer to vaccinate for practical reasons simply because it is easier in the long run but I see the appeal of not vaccinating also because I don't like the pushy collectives. If I wasn't so lazy I would not vaccinate out of anti-collectivist principle, not because of any potential harm a vaccine can cause.
Ethics to me means not stealing, supporting private property rights, not taxing anyone's work, not taxing anyone's savings, not forcing people into anything they do not want to be forced into by any form of collective action. That's ethics.
Selfishness is a bad thing when it's taken to an illogical extreme. Suggesting otherwise is socially retarded.
- Define bad. I disagree with you, selfishness is not a bad thing at any extreme but any cooperation must be voluntary. In any transaction both sides must have something to gain for the transaction to happen, so while in principle AFAIC any amount of selfishness is good, in practice quite a bit of cooperation happens ironically for purely selfish reasons.
Everyone but perhaps Russia and China will benefit if the UK stays in the EU, including the UK.
- I disagree. EU is a large government and because of that UK leaving that large government makes EU a smaller place and a smaller government, which is definitely better than a larger government.
The UK is not providing a free ride to the EU. They are getting quite a bit.
- nobody should be subdisiding anybody, if there was ever a reason to have anything like 'EU' it would be to increase individual liberties, not to reduce them. Unfortunately in practice anything of that size brings about the worst quality of people - desire to control it with government, with taxation and redistribution, so whether UK is getting more or less than what it is forced to give up I think it is always a good idea not to allow any theft at all. So whether UK is getting more of the stolen proceeds or it is robbed more than what is given to it, reducing/ending that type of practice is better than allowing it to go on.
Of-course it is simple arithmetic and Amazon purchased Whole Foods *not* to subsidise it but to make money. If Whole Foods division is not making money it should not be subsidised, it should be restructured/sold/terminated/whatever, but not subsidised, that's not the purpose of a business - to make losses.
So when you are saying 'Amazon can afford' are you saying that Amazon should take money out of its profitable AWS division and subsidise its unprofitable Whole Foods division? It's not a 'zero sum game' IF you can make the business to sell more, to generate more revenue. However if the sales are the same (or lower) then you are stuck with at most the same revenues and higher expenses and retail business is very low margin, it survives due to volume. The economics of this is simple, minimum wage is always a net negative as any tax, and minimum wage is a tax. Minimum wage is a tax on ability, people with lower ability will suffer due to it because fewer of them will find any jobs.
Progressive policy is policy of collectivism and murder of individuals by the collectivist oppressive system. USSR also had its 'bad actors', they called them 'kulaks', they called them 'anti-proliteriat' or 'anti-bolshevik' and Lenin ordered to murder people who were considered anti-revolution, anti-bolshevik, in any case, those were the 'bad actors' as you like to call them, they had to be exterminated and then as we all know things became excellent. Soviet Union became the wealthiest economy in the world, tens of millions of people were not murdered after that, not sent to Gulags, hundreds of millions were not living in poverty, USSR did not engage and did not lose the Cold War, Soviet Union still exists today, more powerful than ever because that's what collectivism and socialism do - they create strong economies that do not murder people and allow them to live and prosper. Oh, wait, no, that's not how it went down.
'Bad actors' = anti-revolutionaries = anti-collectivists = anti-bolshevik, the way to deal with 'bad actors' is to exterminate them, that's because everybody becomes a 'bad actor' at some point in a system that is aimed at destroying the individual freedoms. I bet you would love it back then, maybe you'd work with Lenin, supporting his ideas of using terrorism (red terror he called it) to remove bad actors to win the revolution.
I don't see a purpose for concentration camps, however moving people who are rioting off of any form of public assistance makes all the sense, removing all public assistance and getting rid of all taxes makes the most sense of course.
Anyway, putin is afraid for his life, the longer he lives the more afraid he gets, after all the murdering and racketeering and stealing that he has done he expects everybody around him to be murderers, racketeers, thieves, he created a new internal army of 300,000 just to protect himself from the population, of-course he wants to ban the Internet, at least to mute it completely so that no dissent would be possible. putin controls all of the media in the country, he wants to prevent any other media from becoming a possibility. There are dozens of youtubers (maybe more than dozens) that offer a dissenting point of view, discuss what is really happening in the country, he cannot allow that.
Actually no, the public education system is seriously fucked up if it produces people who are under an honest opinion that people and companies exist to pay taxes.
People and companies do not exist to pay taxes, taxes are not the reason for the economy, taxes are the reason why the economy is getting poorer and poorer while government is getting bigger and bigger all while individuals are losing more and more freedoms to the oppressive government apparatus.
It is not up to taxes to educate children, to heal people, to build infrastructure, it is up to the working economy and to individual decisions everybody is making on daily basis what to buy, where and from who, where to work, whether to work for yourself or for somebody else.
Taxation is not something positive, it's a negative thing, it does not build the economy or society, it subtracts from those things. Amazon of-course pays taxes *unfortunately*, not paying federal income taxes in a specific time period does not mean they do not pay taxes, it means they overpaid enough that they had a tax offset or some such legal crap that the companies (and people) shouldn't even go through in the first place.
It would be such a strange thing to patent this rather than start a company and use trade secrets to build machines that would be much more efficient than the existing ones. If this guy knows how to dump inertial mass and how to do superconductivity at room temperatures and how to generate high frequency gravitational waves he could literally rule this planet in a short time frame if instead of patenting he would just use this knowledge in a number of practical applications. Power generation, transportation, weapon systems to name a few obvious industries where he could literally destroy all competition. I don't know, that's what I would do, I wouldn't patent it. If I invented cure for cancer or for viruses like HIV likewise, I would use trade secrets to gain enormous power, wouldn't use patenting to skim a little bit of money, that's just pathetic.
What is seriously fucked up is that the people 'educated' in the public system believe that companies and people exist to pay taxes.
Amazon pays taxes of-course (totally unfortunately, they shouldn't, nobody should ever be paying any income or wealth related taxes to any government or collective), they are paying what they are legally forced to pay (under the barrel of government guns as all oppressed individuals are). They *should not be paying any income or wealth taxes* but they are.
The real problem is that you and the likes of you, who were 'educated' in the public 'education' system are under the wrong impression that people and companies exist to pay taxes or must pay taxes because it is illegal to not pay them. People and companies build the economy and society, government is a parasite on the body of the economy and society built by individuals, as long as the parasite is not too large and not too bloodthirsty the economy and society can continue existing, at some point the parasite gets so large that it kills the host economy and society. Venezuella is the most recent example, but one of the most prominent examples was the former USSR, where people didn't pay as much in taxes, as their entire lives were controlled and taxed by default before they even did a day of work, these bloodthirsty host economies were killed by their parasites.
Governments are parasites, the collective is a parasite on the back of the host individuals. Income and wealth taxes must not be paid, if a large enough percentage of the population understands it at some point and stop paying the system will not be able to attack them all and will show its teeth and then we'll have a proper conflict that will end this nonsense.
Yeah, but that legal principle is idiotic, people and companies should absolutely be able to dump, to subsidise, to burn their own (or their investors') money all day long. It is fine for the end consumer actually because the end consumer is getting a good deal while it lasts. The only reason to oppose it is to pretend that your other business has some sort of a right not to be outcompeted on the amassed capital. That's also competition - amassed capital. A company should be able to give me stuff for free and while it goes on I will not object. At some point the party will end, too bad for that company, there will be competition, just not the competition that could not survive the capital burning while it continued. The government and the people who support this nonsense are basically colluding to create a theater of competition that does not actually exist. If somebody is giving you a deal that is better than what the free market could offer at the time because they are subsidising it, it's their problem.
The government is basically colluding with the supposed competitors here to justify a power grab, just because it is 'legal' does not make it right.
I hope that Amazon and everybody else can finally find freedom and pay nothing in income taxes, in payroll taxes, in withholding of any kind, in wealth / savings taxes, in property taxes. Free people must be free *from* government and free *from* the collective, there shouldn't be any taxes and there shouldn't be any welfare schemes, any socialism, any form of government spending.
Correct, I think that income and wealth taxes are theft and I am willing to pay for anything I use directly to the company that provides it. If the road is not maintained means that it is not a profitable road, profitable businesses maintain what they provide to get more clients, I think you are confusing government and for profit businesses in their motivations. If a road is not maintained it means the road is not generating enough income to do maintenance, which means there is probably no economic reason for the road to continue existing at that point in time. If on the other hand the road is actually economically viable but the company decides not to spend the money there is a perfectly good business then for somebody else to enter and to create competition where there was none. What am I going to do if the road is not maintained? I will have to live with it or figure out whether a road here can be profitable and either get a loan, purchase the road and run the business better to increase customer volume, start a different enterprise and build a competing road or stop using the road and move if the area is economically falling behind. If a road is not maintained it means the area is not economically viable.
There shouldn't be any government roads and nobody should be 'giving money to a company to build the road'.
A need would generate enough demand that would allow a company to issue bonds across the local population to build the road, there would be a private contract for such a road. This road would serve a purpose, it wouldn't be there for political reasons, it would be there for economic reasons, and if it is there for economic reasons then there is competition for such a resource and there is private ownership and thus private stewartship of a road.
A government can spend unlimited money on infrustructure that doesn't do anything, doesn't do anything useful, provides only a reason to steal tax money and to gain political advantage.
A company will spend when there is a profit motive and the people decide whether there should be a profit motive in building any type of infrastructure. Corporate execs are *irrelevant*, whether they are pillars of anything is irrelevant, the only meaningful question is this: is there a need that can genereate profit and if there is a need, does it cover the expense so that the return on the investment would make sense.
Things should be built where they are necessary, not because there is a way to steal and spend everybody's money.
The State wants it to be illegal for people to tell each other about the traps that the State is setting for them, of-course it does. Everything should be private, including roads, there shouldn't be such a concept as government police, we should be able to drive on private roads and to choose roads that have no speed limits, no limits of any kind if we wish to do that, it's up to the choice of an individual how to drive, how fast, whether to use drugs while driving, etc.
AFAIC the government needs to be shut down fully and permanently. People should keep all of their earnings, trade should not be regulated by federal governments of any kind, drugs, prostitution, etc. should not be illegal ever at all, military conflicts are unnecessary and if somebody is attacking your State, guess what:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why do you or anybody needs a federal government at all? So that you can have a circus every 4 years? To steal from you, to violate the Constitution, to abuse power? The Federal government has got to go.
I've got family saved by medicine and all of it was developed in Europe - now that's unfortunate. This means that money was stolen from people before it was misused by the government to save some collectivists. Isn't that just perfect. Austerity should be implemented for the government, the government must be austere, people will figure out whether they should save on their own.
As to government and subsidies - there shouldn't be government, there shouldn't be taxes and then these issues go away on their own. Minimum wage shouldn't exist, the real minimum wage is 0, that's when nobody is hiring and you cannot mandate somebody to create a real job, you can only mandate theft from people who actually make money as opposed to stealing it.
ha, so standing against the collectives and for the individuals is now considered misanthropy in your head, well, Orwellian ideals are alive and well there. USA is a dysfunctional country becuase it moved away from its founding ideals - individualism and embraced the insanity of collectivism.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you see higher ground exactly? Demanding that people / companies pay their taxes is the lower ground, it is bad morality and bad economics, it's not higher ground. People and companies shouldn't be paying any form of income or revenue or capital or savings related taxes, it's bad morality and worse economics.
AFAIC everybody who is making money should stop paying taxes altogether, that is the only moral and good thing to do and it is my not so humble opinion that theft and oppression through taxation is the most immoral the most stupid thing that people came up with in this reality, in this Universe.
People must be able to do whatever they please, to vaccinate or not, etc., it's their kids, their bodies. I prefer to vaccinate for practical reasons simply because it is easier in the long run but I see the appeal of not vaccinating also because I don't like the pushy collectives. If I wasn't so lazy I would not vaccinate out of anti-collectivist principle, not because of any potential harm a vaccine can cause.
and then change the calendar and comemorate it in November as well...
what a waste of time and resources, both, this law and EU itself.
Government ... where the old IT guys go to die.
Government is the problem and I am not a yong guy.
If I only had 8 mansions I also wouldn't want my money to be wasted by any government program.
Ethics to me means not stealing, supporting private property rights, not taxing anyone's work, not taxing anyone's savings, not forcing people into anything they do not want to be forced into by any form of collective action. That's ethics.
Selfishness is a bad thing when it's taken to an illogical extreme. Suggesting otherwise is socially retarded.
- Define bad. I disagree with you, selfishness is not a bad thing at any extreme but any cooperation must be voluntary. In any transaction both sides must have something to gain for the transaction to happen, so while in principle AFAIC any amount of selfishness is good, in practice quite a bit of cooperation happens ironically for purely selfish reasons.
Everyone but perhaps Russia and China will benefit if the UK stays in the EU, including the UK.
- I disagree. EU is a large government and because of that UK leaving that large government makes EU a smaller place and a smaller government, which is definitely better than a larger government.
The UK is not providing a free ride to the EU. They are getting quite a bit.
- nobody should be subdisiding anybody, if there was ever a reason to have anything like 'EU' it would be to increase individual liberties, not to reduce them. Unfortunately in practice anything of that size brings about the worst quality of people - desire to control it with government, with taxation and redistribution, so whether UK is getting more or less than what it is forced to give up I think it is always a good idea not to allow any theft at all. So whether UK is getting more of the stolen proceeds or it is robbed more than what is given to it, reducing/ending that type of practice is better than allowing it to go on.
Of-course it is simple arithmetic and Amazon purchased Whole Foods *not* to subsidise it but to make money. If Whole Foods division is not making money it should not be subsidised, it should be restructured/sold/terminated/whatever, but not subsidised, that's not the purpose of a business - to make losses.
So when you are saying 'Amazon can afford' are you saying that Amazon should take money out of its profitable AWS division and subsidise its unprofitable Whole Foods division? It's not a 'zero sum game' IF you can make the business to sell more, to generate more revenue. However if the sales are the same (or lower) then you are stuck with at most the same revenues and higher expenses and retail business is very low margin, it survives due to volume. The economics of this is simple, minimum wage is always a net negative as any tax, and minimum wage is a tax. Minimum wage is a tax on ability, people with lower ability will suffer due to it because fewer of them will find any jobs.
Progressive policy is policy of collectivism and murder of individuals by the collectivist oppressive system. USSR also had its 'bad actors', they called them 'kulaks', they called them 'anti-proliteriat' or 'anti-bolshevik' and Lenin ordered to murder people who were considered anti-revolution, anti-bolshevik, in any case, those were the 'bad actors' as you like to call them, they had to be exterminated and then as we all know things became excellent. Soviet Union became the wealthiest economy in the world, tens of millions of people were not murdered after that, not sent to Gulags, hundreds of millions were not living in poverty, USSR did not engage and did not lose the Cold War, Soviet Union still exists today, more powerful than ever because that's what collectivism and socialism do - they create strong economies that do not murder people and allow them to live and prosper. Oh, wait, no, that's not how it went down.
'Bad actors' = anti-revolutionaries = anti-collectivists = anti-bolshevik, the way to deal with 'bad actors' is to exterminate them, that's because everybody becomes a 'bad actor' at some point in a system that is aimed at destroying the individual freedoms. I bet you would love it back then, maybe you'd work with Lenin, supporting his ideas of using terrorism (red terror he called it) to remove bad actors to win the revolution.
you are in your own class, the class of thieves and muggers and a wanna be armed robber.
I don't see a purpose for concentration camps, however moving people who are rioting off of any form of public assistance makes all the sense, removing all public assistance and getting rid of all taxes makes the most sense of course.
They have the best animations of weapons that 3 rubles could buy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... - Boeing X-51 ... is now the newest Russian weapon? :)
Anyway, putin is afraid for his life, the longer he lives the more afraid he gets, after all the murdering and racketeering and stealing that he has done he expects everybody around him to be murderers, racketeers, thieves, he created a new internal army of 300,000 just to protect himself from the population, of-course he wants to ban the Internet, at least to mute it completely so that no dissent would be possible. putin controls all of the media in the country, he wants to prevent any other media from becoming a possibility. There are dozens of youtubers (maybe more than dozens) that offer a dissenting point of view, discuss what is really happening in the country, he cannot allow that.
No, more like iBomb!
Actually no, the public education system is seriously fucked up if it produces people who are under an honest opinion that people and companies exist to pay taxes.
People and companies do not exist to pay taxes, taxes are not the reason for the economy, taxes are the reason why the economy is getting poorer and poorer while government is getting bigger and bigger all while individuals are losing more and more freedoms to the oppressive government apparatus.
It is not up to taxes to educate children, to heal people, to build infrastructure, it is up to the working economy and to individual decisions everybody is making on daily basis what to buy, where and from who, where to work, whether to work for yourself or for somebody else.
Taxation is not something positive, it's a negative thing, it does not build the economy or society, it subtracts from those things. Amazon of-course pays taxes *unfortunately*, not paying federal income taxes in a specific time period does not mean they do not pay taxes, it means they overpaid enough that they had a tax offset or some such legal crap that the companies (and people) shouldn't even go through in the first place.
It would be such a strange thing to patent this rather than start a company and use trade secrets to build machines that would be much more efficient than the existing ones. If this guy knows how to dump inertial mass and how to do superconductivity at room temperatures and how to generate high frequency gravitational waves he could literally rule this planet in a short time frame if instead of patenting he would just use this knowledge in a number of practical applications. Power generation, transportation, weapon systems to name a few obvious industries where he could literally destroy all competition. I don't know, that's what I would do, I wouldn't patent it. If I invented cure for cancer or for viruses like HIV likewise, I would use trade secrets to gain enormous power, wouldn't use patenting to skim a little bit of money, that's just pathetic.
What is seriously fucked up is that the people 'educated' in the public system believe that companies and people exist to pay taxes.
Amazon pays taxes of-course (totally unfortunately, they shouldn't, nobody should ever be paying any income or wealth related taxes to any government or collective), they are paying what they are legally forced to pay (under the barrel of government guns as all oppressed individuals are). They *should not be paying any income or wealth taxes* but they are.
The real problem is that you and the likes of you, who were 'educated' in the public 'education' system are under the wrong impression that people and companies exist to pay taxes or must pay taxes because it is illegal to not pay them. People and companies build the economy and society, government is a parasite on the body of the economy and society built by individuals, as long as the parasite is not too large and not too bloodthirsty the economy and society can continue existing, at some point the parasite gets so large that it kills the host economy and society. Venezuella is the most recent example, but one of the most prominent examples was the former USSR, where people didn't pay as much in taxes, as their entire lives were controlled and taxed by default before they even did a day of work, these bloodthirsty host economies were killed by their parasites.
Governments are parasites, the collective is a parasite on the back of the host individuals. Income and wealth taxes must not be paid, if a large enough percentage of the population understands it at some point and stop paying the system will not be able to attack them all and will show its teeth and then we'll have a proper conflict that will end this nonsense.
Yeah, but that legal principle is idiotic, people and companies should absolutely be able to dump, to subsidise, to burn their own (or their investors') money all day long. It is fine for the end consumer actually because the end consumer is getting a good deal while it lasts. The only reason to oppose it is to pretend that your other business has some sort of a right not to be outcompeted on the amassed capital. That's also competition - amassed capital. A company should be able to give me stuff for free and while it goes on I will not object. At some point the party will end, too bad for that company, there will be competition, just not the competition that could not survive the capital burning while it continued. The government and the people who support this nonsense are basically colluding to create a theater of competition that does not actually exist. If somebody is giving you a deal that is better than what the free market could offer at the time because they are subsidising it, it's their problem.
The government is basically colluding with the supposed competitors here to justify a power grab, just because it is 'legal' does not make it right.
I hope that Amazon and everybody else can finally find freedom and pay nothing in income taxes, in payroll taxes, in withholding of any kind, in wealth / savings taxes, in property taxes. Free people must be free *from* government and free *from* the collective, there shouldn't be any taxes and there shouldn't be any welfare schemes, any socialism, any form of government spending.
Correct, I think that income and wealth taxes are theft and I am willing to pay for anything I use directly to the company that provides it. If the road is not maintained means that it is not a profitable road, profitable businesses maintain what they provide to get more clients, I think you are confusing government and for profit businesses in their motivations. If a road is not maintained it means the road is not generating enough income to do maintenance, which means there is probably no economic reason for the road to continue existing at that point in time. If on the other hand the road is actually economically viable but the company decides not to spend the money there is a perfectly good business then for somebody else to enter and to create competition where there was none. What am I going to do if the road is not maintained? I will have to live with it or figure out whether a road here can be profitable and either get a loan, purchase the road and run the business better to increase customer volume, start a different enterprise and build a competing road or stop using the road and move if the area is economically falling behind. If a road is not maintained it means the area is not economically viable.
There shouldn't be any government roads and nobody should be 'giving money to a company to build the road'.
A need would generate enough demand that would allow a company to issue bonds across the local population to build the road, there would be a private contract for such a road. This road would serve a purpose, it wouldn't be there for political reasons, it would be there for economic reasons, and if it is there for economic reasons then there is competition for such a resource and there is private ownership and thus private stewartship of a road.
A government can spend unlimited money on infrustructure that doesn't do anything, doesn't do anything useful, provides only a reason to steal tax money and to gain political advantage.
A company will spend when there is a profit motive and the people decide whether there should be a profit motive in building any type of infrastructure. Corporate execs are *irrelevant*, whether they are pillars of anything is irrelevant, the only meaningful question is this: is there a need that can genereate profit and if there is a need, does it cover the expense so that the return on the investment would make sense.
Things should be built where they are necessary, not because there is a way to steal and spend everybody's money.
The State wants it to be illegal for people to tell each other about the traps that the State is setting for them, of-course it does. Everything should be private, including roads, there shouldn't be such a concept as government police, we should be able to drive on private roads and to choose roads that have no speed limits, no limits of any kind if we wish to do that, it's up to the choice of an individual how to drive, how fast, whether to use drugs while driving, etc.
AFAIC the government needs to be shut down fully and permanently. People should keep all of their earnings, trade should not be regulated by federal governments of any kind, drugs, prostitution, etc. should not be illegal ever at all, military conflicts are unnecessary and if somebody is attacking your State, guess what:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why do you or anybody needs a federal government at all? So that you can have a circus every 4 years? To steal from you, to violate the Constitution, to abuse power? The Federal government has got to go.
I've got family saved by medicine and all of it was developed in Europe - now that's unfortunate. This means that money was stolen from people before it was misused by the government to save some collectivists. Isn't that just perfect. Austerity should be implemented for the government, the government must be austere, people will figure out whether they should save on their own.
As to government and subsidies - there shouldn't be government, there shouldn't be taxes and then these issues go away on their own. Minimum wage shouldn't exist, the real minimum wage is 0, that's when nobody is hiring and you cannot mandate somebody to create a real job, you can only mandate theft from people who actually make money as opposed to stealing it.
ha, so standing against the collectives and for the individuals is now considered misanthropy in your head, well, Orwellian ideals are alive and well there. USA is a dysfunctional country becuase it moved away from its founding ideals - individualism and embraced the insanity of collectivism.