Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?  (Read 10672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile

Buying a fire house is in the contract?  I doubt it.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

Buying a fire house is in the contract?  I doubt it.


The "fire house" is not part the corporation contract,
but the "payment of taxes" which can fund building a fire house . . .
 IS part of the contract with corporations.
Note: By entering into contract with the legal fiction (called government)
the corporation (legal fiction with government) is bound(contracted responsibility)
by all of the "legal" aspects placed by government upon corporations.


The ability for the government to collect corporation tax money
is part of a separate contract (constitution) and that same contract
also stipulates how part of that money is to be used (general welfare).


On a separate but related topic . . .
The sixteenth amendment (which was never properly ratified),
even if it were properly ratified (enforceable as contract),
only stipulates tax on profit(income)
not the entirety of net receipts(such as wages).
http://agentfortruth.com


Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom

As long as you're talking about government-recognized corporations in that specific context in which they do get special benefits from the state via their "legal fiction" status, then I don't really have beef with you about that. I agree that large companies (not necessarily just corporations but them too) get lots of benefits for the taxes they pay. It's actually a smart investment for Walmart to lobby the government to kick people off their private property rather than buy it on an open market on the premise that the government will collect a lot of taxes from them, taxes they're going to pay anyway so they may as well benefit from government force.

That said, the basic idea of people pooling their investments into one endeavor and divvying it up into property shares based on how much they've invested is just a (albeit complex) contract and doesn't justify them being stolen from. If someone did an agorist version of a corporation, that would be very different and I wouldn't wish violence upon them for it.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

As long as you're talking about government-recognized corporations
Not only government recognized, but created by the taxing government.

Government A cannot tax a corporation created by Government B
unless that corporation(of B) enters into a contract with Government A to allow it.

And I can't think of any other general use of the word "corporation" - - 
- - though you may prove me wrong :-0)

PS: By the same token,
Corporation B may not do business under the jurisdiction of Government A without contract(tax)
as that would be STEALING business opportunity
from the natural people within the jurisdiction of Government A



That said, the basic idea of people pooling their investments into one endeavor and divvying it up into property shares based on how much they've invested is just a (albeit complex) contract and doesn't justify them being stolen from.
I agree 100%

Private individuals should not be subject to a government tax
( unless, of course, they contract to allow it ).

« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 11:37:21 AM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile

Of course once you eliminate taxes on individuals and keep it for corporations the corporations will no longer stay corporations and form a different collective style.  Plus not all companies and businesses are corporations so many will not be paying taxes under your initial premise anyway.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

Of course once you eliminate taxes on individuals and keep it for corporations the corporations will no longer stay corporations and form a different collective style.
What are you trying to say ?
Taxes(or no taxes) on individuals has nothing to do with taxes on corporations
or the incentives(government benefits) for corporations to remain corporations.



Plus not all companies and businesses are corporations so many will not be paying taxes under your initial premise anyway.
Plus? 0 + 0 = 0

Not sure what point you wish to make since this observation
does not change the premise or the validity of the premise.
The premise is not based upon any need for all businesses to be corporations(and pay taxes).

As long as there are some business who wish to incorporate, the premise is sound.
And the government can increase the benefits for businesses to incorporate
so there is not really a sound case that there would not be enough corporations
 to fund the building of a fire house :-0)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 11:19:47 PM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile

Sounds like only businesses that are incorporated are taxed in your initial "sound" premise.  If that is the case then they disincorporate to no longer pay taxes.  Fire house still not built - with Gubmint stolen money.  Why pay less taxes as a corporation when they can pay none if they disincorporate?

See here is the thing.  The stealing is the Gubmint taking it at gunpoint - not a corporation not paying.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

Sounds like only businesses that are incorporated are taxed in your initial "sound" premise.  If that is the case then they disincorporate to no longer pay taxes.
Basically correct. ( though with any restrictions on that process defined in the contract if any - ie timeframe, termination fees, etc )
But why would they dissolve the corporation when the benefits outweigh the taxes ?


Fire house still not built - with Gubmint stolen money. 
unsupported claim


Why pay less taxes as a corporation when they can pay none if they disincorporate?
To dissolve the corporation means to relinquish access to benefits including doing business as a corporation.
Even for small LLCs (limited liability corporations) the loss of benefit is almost always greater than the reduction in taxes.
 
Other than bankruptcies, it has been rare to see any business de-incorporate in any nation(state)
so your argument fails by simple historical analysis.

See here is the thing.  The stealing is the Gubmint taking it at gunpoint - not a corporation not paying.
Unsupported claim.

Someone gives you a benefit for which you agree(contract) to pay money in return.
Having received the benefit, you then decide not to pay for that benefit.
HOW is that not to be considered STEALING ?

Do you believe it is okay to break contracts and that there should be no consequence for doing so ?

« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 08:35:21 AM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile

Your entire is premise based on unsupported claims - and you want you call me out for making assumptions too??

How is saying Gubmint taking money at gunpoint is theft an unsupported claim?  They may claim it is legal theft but it still theft.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

Your entire is premise based on unsupported claims
No, my premise can be seen in historical fact and example.


How is saying Gubmint taking money at gunpoint is theft an unsupported claim?
You misrepresent the point to which I responded.

First, you don't say whether the government is using defensive force or offensive force.
More information needed -- Did someone STEAL before being held at gun point ?

Second, and more importantly my reference was directed to part of
"The stealing is . . .  not a corporation not paying."
To which I asked --
Someone gives you a benefit for which you agree(contract) to pay money in return.
Having received the benefit, you then decide not to pay for that benefit.
HOW is that not to be considered STEALING ?

Got ANSWER ?


Logged

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile

I'm done.  You build a premise based on assumptions.  I then make assumptions on how corporations will react.  You dismiss it because it doesn't match your myopic assumptions and desired outcome.  Go find some other sucker to play your what if game.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

You build a premise based on assumptions.  I then make assumptions on how corporations will react.

Hmm, let's look.
my Premise = There should be no tax on people ( no individual income tax, etc )
            and regardless of what some courts say, corporations are not people.

my assumptions are what ?
#1 people own themselves <-- clearly inherent properties are self evident
#2 corporations are not people <-- clearly non-inherent properties are self evident

your assumption = corporations will stop paying taxes
There is nothing self evident in that assumption as I pointed out it.
Is not self evident that relinquishing benefits that outweigh taxes is something that
a corporation would do (and historical evidence of corporation behavior suggests same).

If  you have evidence (to make up for not being self-evidenced) for your assumption, then please provide it.

Even though my assumptions are self evident, I can still provide you with evidence . . .

#2 corporations are not people
I can show an autopsy of a corporation in which there were no traces of human remains.

#1 people own themselves
If you need evidence that you own your self, then I agree you don't own yourself and I OWN YOU ;-0)
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom

I understand Sean's skepticism completely. Right now, the benefits corporations gain for their taxes involve lots of violence. A couple of examples that come to mind are suppressing competition with various regulations and paperwork requirements that are daunting to smaller businesses and eminent domain to steal land and sell it to corporations at rock bottom prices. And maybe you have other benefits in mind that are less rights-violating but that's kind of what governments tend to do--violate rights. My belief is that people are generally looking out for their self interest and governments are unaccountable for their actions so it's a disaster when we give special rights and effectively consolidate power into a small group of people.

Not a hard proof you're wrong. It's just why I think it's kind of a fantasy to think you have figured out a way for people to get "free" stuff through governments.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile

I think it's kind of a fantasy to think you have figured out a way for people to get "free" stuff through governments.

It's not "free" stuff.

It's the natural people "giving up some of their business opportunity"
(using government as the transfer vehicle - "society wide corporation" to effectuate that)
in return for "funding(taxes) for benefit of the people".

The premise on funding without stealing is sound.
It's the implementation(people's actions) that can fail.
And for the super majority of history, people's actions in implementing don't fail.

That said, the failure by people in their civic duty to keep government in proper bounds can happen.

So yes, history shows that near the fall of empires,
(after people have failed in their civic duties )
most corporations(the non-insiders) may no longer benefit,
and further, the people no longer benefit from the arrangement either,
but those times are very thin slices of history.

Arguably, yes, we are nearing one of those thin slices now, so I can understand skepticism too.
But the skepticism is misplaced.
The funding idea is sound (no need for skepticism of the idea)
but yes, the idea only works when civic duty has not failed and
it is NOT misplaced to be skeptical that people are failing in their civic duty
to keep government to its proper role.


PS many people who really do just want "free" stuff . . .
 are often the same ones who fail in their civic duties.


Liberty is not "free".
Liberty comes with responsibility.
Part of that responsibility is civic duties.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 03:16:42 PM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom

So how is the corporation getting a good deal for it's taxes when they're funding services that benefit everyone and not just the corporations who paid for it, like fire stations? That just seems like a basic math failure. That actually raises a question. What exactly is the corporation getting for its taxes in this theoretical situation of a non-corrupt, non-aggressive government? Presumably it's not benefiting from eminent domain or oppressive regulations on its competitors, right?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 08:35:13 AM by dalebert »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 33 queries.