The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
Yes, but the LibDems should never have agreed to be the junior partner in a coalition with the Tories in the first place. It would have made infinitely more sense to do a deal with Labour, they are far closer idiologically.
It's just that at the time, there was so much anti-Gordon Brown hysteria in the media, that Nick Clegg thought he was being clever by picking Cameron, when anyone with an ounce of political sense could have told him he was fucking himself and his party up for the next generation or two.
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Nick Clegg is the member of a minority party that gained power as part of a coalition. A lot of people who voted for them are unhappy that, in joining the coalition, they've had to make some compromises and have only managed to achieve some of their objectives. These people would, presumably, much rather that they'd stayed out and achieved none of them, allowing smug LibDem voters to keep claiming that things aren't their fault.
The point was that the LibDems only did so well because a lot of people were prepared to vote tactically. In my constituency, the chances of a Labour candidate winning are approximately the same as my winning the National Lottery two weeks running, so the argument was that it's better to vote LibDem in the hope of beating the Tories, rather than "waste" your vote on Labour.
The LibDem won, but then they formed a coalition with the fucking Tories anyway, which had never been suggested, and when the far more natural fit would have been with Labour.
As a result, people like me will never, ever vote LibDem again, in any circumstances whatsoever. This is unfair on a great many LibDems who are probably principled people with many good ideas, but it's true. At the next election, their vote will hopefully plummet back to 1970s levels and they'll probably end up with fewer MPs than UKIP. This is not a good thing, but it's their own stupid fault.
See, we here in the Great Melting Pot don't give a damn. And from this distance, don't really see that much difference. The fact that Cossacks and Kazakhs will violently object to being confused with one another strikes us as silly at best, primitive at worst. Get over yourselves. After Genghis Khan went through, you're all practically brothers anyway.
Yet Europe, from West to far East, has been busily at war over such crap for the past 1000 years. Really? Get another hobby!
Yes it's fantastic that there's no racism anywhere in the US and you have created a perfectly peaceful and tolerant multi-cultural society! With that and your enlightened foreign policy initiatives, it's no wonder that all the world wants to be like you.
If I were a billionaire I'd hide all my money from those greedy bastards too.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay my taxes, give a shitload of money to charity, and still live a lifestyle that would be the envy of almost everyone who ever lived.
Ayn Rand will be weeping in anger in Heaven/Hell now.
The government are not "stealing" their profits, they are levying a tax upon those companies the same way they do on individuals, and for the same reason, namely that both individuals and corporations benefit from the sort of society that spends money on roads, clean water, a social security system and so on.
If rightwingers seriously want to go back to a system where everything was paid for by rich patrons as and when they saw fit, they should just come out and say so. Personally, I prefer a society with at least a modicum of equality and fraternity, not just liberty.
Fortunately you don't have to, there's an article on (of all places) The Register which quite powerfully makes the case for abolishing corporate taxes. Problem is, at least in the UK, it makes up about a big chunk of government revenue. Roughly the entire defence budget. My solution? Slash the military and then slash corporate taxes, rebalance by abolishing the concept of capital gains (a distinction which is rather arbitrary and was introduced on the back of economic theories of questionable reliability).
Getting rid of corporation and capital gains taxes would suit the rich very well indeed, as would moving towards higher VAT and lower income taxes. All of these things would push more of the tax burden onto the poor.
Can we just get back to saying "while" instead of using its pretentious trendy douchey variant? Sure, if you're British, and you use it regularly, fine. Otherwise, get over yourself.
The first paragraph where "whilst" is used is about companies not paying tax in the UK, so it's not unlikely the submitter is British.
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
Whence this notion that taxing is stealing? The US Constitution certainly authorizes taxation.
Are we all entitled to getting something for nothing? Enjoy all the benefits of living in a country, and nobody has to pay for it?
Saying that all tax is simply the government stealing your money at the barrel of a gun is a way of showing your libertarian credentials, the same way as a neo-Nazi will get an "HH 88" tattoo to show how bad ass he is to his neo-Nazi friends..
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
You utter tool. If you think corporations represent freedom, you really haven't been paying attention.
You might not have thought of this, but maybe it's because people are waking up to the fact that there is a class war going on, and it is the coporations and the very rich who are winning it.
Want to know why I'm a libertarian conservative? Because in 45 years I've become convinced that while often it is well-meaning, almost all government is incompetent, and therefore the least possible government is best. Which is better, semi-anarchy where one is free to build ones own future as best one can, or some sort of perpetual serfdom to the landed classes that see us only as rubes to exploit, cows to milk, or votes to pander to?
Democratic government is the next stage along from feudalism. Giving power to the corporations instead of government just re-introduces another version of the "landed classes" which we have been struggling for hundreds of years to get tid of.
Yes, we get it, governments are evil, and any interruption to the free market is evil, and you are very rich and successful and should be allowed to do whatever you want.
This is a very, very bogus report. "Outrage"? Come on! Is it legal? Yes. Is there some kind of "moral requirement" that we all maximize the taxes we have to pay or suffer "outrage"? Don't we all look for all the deductions we can legally get away with? WTF is all the bogus "outrage" at perfectly normal, legal behavior?
You're out of touch. There is indeed genuine irritation (if not actual outrage) at these corporations paying no tax, when it is perfectly clear they are making profits somewhere, but can use expensive tax lawyers and accountants to arrange their international affairs so as to hide them.
Individuals have far less room for fiddling their taxes.
Which is why removing all income taxes and introducing a federal flat sales tax is such a great idea. The benefits are great: 1) restore incentives to save 2) reduce the size of the IRS, now instead of policing 300M people they only have to police a few million businesses 3) free a lot of labor from dealing with the tax code and laws 4) just think of the wasted hours spent on filing taxes, no more! 5) no loop holes for anyone! 6) no more free loading hookers, criminals, and aliens!
Sales taxes are regressive, i.e. they hurt the poor more than the rich. At least income tax is a progressive tax, although no doubt this is a bad thing for most rightwingers.
Maybe the corporate taxes should be set at a more favorable rate. 20% of something is still more than 35% of nothing. (or whatever the current tax rate is.). Additionally we could simplify the tax code so these companies don't need to spend millions on their accounting and tax lawyers. Unfortunately we'd probably have to shoot all of the politicians first as this is where many of them came from, and are paid in campaign contributions to do.
If you set US corporate tax at 20% then Bermuda (wherever) is going to offer 10%. If you set the US rate at 10%, Bermuda (wherever) will offer 5% and so on. Until you get down to almost zero, there will always be somewhere with a cheaper alternative.
Here's a thought; if you want companies to pay more taxes then make taxes reasonably low enough that companies find it more bothersome to play legal shell games than simply pay a tax.
Slashdot Mirror
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
Yes, but the LibDems should never have agreed to be the junior partner in a coalition with the Tories in the first place. It would have made infinitely more sense to do a deal with Labour, they are far closer idiologically.
It's just that at the time, there was so much anti-Gordon Brown hysteria in the media, that Nick Clegg thought he was being clever by picking Cameron, when anyone with an ounce of political sense could have told him he was fucking himself and his party up for the next generation or two.
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Nick Clegg is the member of a minority party that gained power as part of a coalition. A lot of people who voted for them are unhappy that, in joining the coalition, they've had to make some compromises and have only managed to achieve some of their objectives. These people would, presumably, much rather that they'd stayed out and achieved none of them, allowing smug LibDem voters to keep claiming that things aren't their fault.
The point was that the LibDems only did so well because a lot of people were prepared to vote tactically. In my constituency, the chances of a Labour candidate winning are approximately the same as my winning the National Lottery two weeks running, so the argument was that it's better to vote LibDem in the hope of beating the Tories, rather than "waste" your vote on Labour.
The LibDem won, but then they formed a coalition with the fucking Tories anyway, which had never been suggested, and when the far more natural fit would have been with Labour.
As a result, people like me will never, ever vote LibDem again, in any circumstances whatsoever. This is unfair on a great many LibDems who are probably principled people with many good ideas, but it's true. At the next election, their vote will hopefully plummet back to 1970s levels and they'll probably end up with fewer MPs than UKIP. This is not a good thing, but it's their own stupid fault.
See, we here in the Great Melting Pot don't give a damn. And from this distance, don't really see that much difference. The fact that Cossacks and Kazakhs will violently object to being confused with one another strikes us as silly at best, primitive at worst. Get over yourselves. After Genghis Khan went through, you're all practically brothers anyway.
Yet Europe, from West to far East, has been busily at war over such crap for the past 1000 years. Really? Get another hobby!
Yes it's fantastic that there's no racism anywhere in the US and you have created a perfectly peaceful and tolerant multi-cultural society! With that and your enlightened foreign policy initiatives, it's no wonder that all the world wants to be like you.
They can always invade Cuba.
Yeah, I'm sure the US wouldn't have any objections to that.
Wow, you are possibly the most humourless person on slashdot. Good work fella, you've got some stiff competition.
No one. NASA was mentioned by name, together with the Pentagon and FBI. I assume NSA was whatever the reading equivalent of a typo is for NASA.
I tough Cheerios was ment to be pissed in? Aren't they? Then im in big trouble...
No, you're thinking of urinal cakes. People often get those mixed up, due to their similar flavour.
I find that a bit insulting to urinal cakes.
"sheeple" - If you think the government is bad now, it would be a lot worse if people who use that term had any real power.
Presumably if you're one of the Randian sheeple-using libertarians you wouldn't be able to accept a job in government without your head exploding.
LOL she was responsible for COBOL. I thought we hated COBOL here?
If I were a billionaire I'd hide all my money from those greedy bastards too.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay my taxes, give a shitload of money to charity, and still live a lifestyle that would be the envy of almost everyone who ever lived.
Ayn Rand will be weeping in anger in Heaven/Hell now.
If rightwingers seriously want to go back to a system where everything was paid for by rich patrons as and when they saw fit, they should just come out and say so. Personally, I prefer a society with at least a modicum of equality and fraternity, not just liberty.
"tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries"
That's glorious turnaround: instead of considering taxation is theft - supposedly it's non-taxation that is theft.
Taxation is only theft to wild-eyed libertarians. To the rest of us, it is a way of paying for a civilised and fairer society.
Fortunately you don't have to, there's an article on (of all places) The Register which quite powerfully makes the case for abolishing corporate taxes. Problem is, at least in the UK, it makes up about a big chunk of government revenue. Roughly the entire defence budget. My solution? Slash the military and then slash corporate taxes, rebalance by abolishing the concept of capital gains (a distinction which is rather arbitrary and was introduced on the back of economic theories of questionable reliability).
Getting rid of corporation and capital gains taxes would suit the rich very well indeed, as would moving towards higher VAT and lower income taxes. All of these things would push more of the tax burden onto the poor.
Can we just get back to saying "while" instead of using its pretentious trendy douchey variant? Sure, if you're British, and you use it regularly, fine. Otherwise, get over yourself.
The first paragraph where "whilst" is used is about companies not paying tax in the UK, so it's not unlikely the submitter is British.
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
Whence this notion that taxing is stealing? The US Constitution certainly authorizes taxation.
Are we all entitled to getting something for nothing? Enjoy all the benefits of living in a country, and nobody has to pay for it?
Saying that all tax is simply the government stealing your money at the barrel of a gun is a way of showing your libertarian credentials, the same way as a neo-Nazi will get an "HH 88" tattoo to show how bad ass he is to his neo-Nazi friends..
Hello? Last I checked the companies EARNED the money and it was the GOVERNMENTS trying to steal it from them. Yes steal with the threat of violence if you don't hand the money over to them. Power to these companies for fucking the man.
You utter tool. If you think corporations represent freedom, you really haven't been paying attention.
class warfare crap
You might not have thought of this, but maybe it's because people are waking up to the fact that there is a class war going on, and it is the coporations and the very rich who are winning it.
Want to know why I'm a libertarian conservative? Because in 45 years I've become convinced that while often it is well-meaning, almost all government is incompetent, and therefore the least possible government is best. Which is better, semi-anarchy where one is free to build ones own future as best one can, or some sort of perpetual serfdom to the landed classes that see us only as rubes to exploit, cows to milk, or votes to pander to?
Democratic government is the next stage along from feudalism. Giving power to the corporations instead of government just re-introduces another version of the "landed classes" which we have been struggling for hundreds of years to get tid of.
Yes, we get it, governments are evil, and any interruption to the free market is evil, and you are very rich and successful and should be allowed to do whatever you want.
"Fair share"? What exactly is "fair" about taking someone's earnings under threat of violence?
-jcr
Loss of absolute liberty is the price you pay for civilisation.
This is a very, very bogus report. "Outrage"? Come on! Is it legal? Yes. Is there some kind of "moral requirement" that we all maximize the taxes we have to pay or suffer "outrage"? Don't we all look for all the deductions we can legally get away with? WTF is all the bogus "outrage" at perfectly normal, legal behavior?
You're out of touch. There is indeed genuine irritation (if not actual outrage) at these corporations paying no tax, when it is perfectly clear they are making profits somewhere, but can use expensive tax lawyers and accountants to arrange their international affairs so as to hide them.
Individuals have far less room for fiddling their taxes.
that number is in percentage dingbat, I know you are trying to be funny, but you came off as retarded
You're the once coming off as retarded, mate. Of course he knew it was percentages.
Which is why removing all income taxes and introducing a federal flat sales tax is such a great idea. The benefits are great: 1) restore incentives to save 2) reduce the size of the IRS, now instead of policing 300M people they only have to police a few million businesses 3) free a lot of labor from dealing with the tax code and laws 4) just think of the wasted hours spent on filing taxes, no more! 5) no loop holes for anyone! 6) no more free loading hookers, criminals, and aliens!
Sales taxes are regressive, i.e. they hurt the poor more than the rich. At least income tax is a progressive tax, although no doubt this is a bad thing for most rightwingers.
You can vote for the President, you don't get to vote for a corporqations's CEO.
Democratic government might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative.
Maybe the corporate taxes should be set at a more favorable rate. 20% of something is still more than 35% of nothing. (or whatever the current tax rate is.). Additionally we could simplify the tax code so these companies don't need to spend millions on their accounting and tax lawyers. Unfortunately we'd probably have to shoot all of the politicians first as this is where many of them came from, and are paid in campaign contributions to do.
If you set US corporate tax at 20% then Bermuda (wherever) is going to offer 10%. If you set the US rate at 10%, Bermuda (wherever) will offer 5% and so on. Until you get down to almost zero, there will always be somewhere with a cheaper alternative.
Here's a thought; if you want companies to pay more taxes then make taxes reasonably low enough that companies find it more bothersome to play legal shell games than simply pay a tax.
It will always be less bothersome to avoid tax.