At what point did you take your income off-shore?

[vinny lingo]

You've basically got the right idea, but when you say you like public roads that's the same principle that validates welfare. There really is no middle ground on the right to confiscate property from John and use it to build or provide goods to Jeff.

When you say it is ok to violate property rights for purpose X, it doesn't take long for someone to point out that the rights should (and can) be violated for purpose Y. And so on and so on until government takes everything, and provides everything. First it is security and justice. Then it is rail and roads. Then it is medicine. Then education. Then pensions. Then the auto industry. Then health care. Regulate communications, food, entertainment, sex, marriage, sports...

The problem is that instead of taking from John to give to Jeff, you have to convince John to be charitable. That's what the problem with the 19th Century was. That's what I believe the "robber barons" realized and why men like Rockefeller and Carnegie spent so much so late in life trying to give back to society.

 

[guerilla]

Guerilla, 19th Century America had its fair share of problems. It wasn't the promised land of milk and honey.

I never indicated it was. My point is that the notion that government built all the roads, or that people can't build roads without government is not true.

But what it had that is so sorely missed by you and me is individual liberty.

To have liberty, you must have property rights. It has been a long time since men had the right to own property without someone else voting or stealing it from them.

 

[guerilla]

The problem is that instead of taking from John to give to Jeff, you have to convince John to be charitable.

You don't have to convince John of anything. It is in his best interest to be charitable, and if he isn't Jeff will have to out compete him. That works when the system is fair. But when you have a system where property rights can't be established and defended (buying judges, cops, politicians) then it's impossible for the poor to get a fair shake.

The Soviets had loads of government, and the people were never poorer. Government doesn't help poor people, it protects rich people who want to exploit others outside the law.

That's what I believe the "robber barons" realized and why men like Rockefeller and Carnegie spent so much so late in life trying to give back to society.

I think they did it to avoid having everything taken from them by the mob, armed with the power to vote property away from it's owner.

There is a lot of class envy around the "Robber Barrons" but there isn't a whole lot of criminality. People hated them for being successful, not because they were particularly evil or despicable.

Even here, we have people talking about paying a fair share. If you paid a fair share, then you wouldn't get ahead paying taxes. And yet if people really believe in a fair share, wouldn't they pay to help people in the absence of a tax?

In my experience, people who like taxes are people who enjoy the spoils of politics. No one who makes serious money equates taxes with voluntary charity. In other words, Bill Gates is happy to give to charity, but he's in no rush to give it to government, because he knows what the score is. He's not an idiot.

 

[transistor]

This cracks me up. You like those streets you drive on? How much do you guys pay for that private school you send your kids to because I know you don't use public education since that's what taxes pay for. Enjoy the murders, rapists and child molesters being kept in a place that is far away from you? National Defense? (and of course I mean just the basic defense, not the "lets create a war" defense)

Does this nation have issues with it's tax system? Yes. Should there be reform with the way it's distributed? Certainly. But by moving your money off shore so you can completely shuck your responsibility as a US citizen? Why don't you just move yourself off shore with it.

(Vinny this is not directed at you just a rant in general about people who don't want to pay the piper. Being that this is wickedfire and most people here are anti establishment, I'm sure I'll get flamed enough for it anyway )

 

[vinny lingo]

You don't have to convince John of anything. It is in his best interest to be charitable, and if he isn't Jeff will have to out compete him. That works when the system is fair. But when you have a system where property rights can't be established and defended (buying judges, cops, politicians) then it's impossible for the poor to get a fair shake.

The Soviets had loads of government, and the people were never poorer. Government doesn't help poor people, it protects rich people who want to exploit others outside the law.


I think they did it to avoid having everything taken from them by the mob, armed with the power to vote property away from it's owner.

There is a lot of class envy around the "Robber Barrons" but there isn't a whole lot of criminality. People hated them for being successful, not because they were particularly evil or despicable.

Even here, we have people talking about paying a fair share. If you paid a fair share, then you wouldn't get ahead paying taxes. And yet if people really believe in a fair share, wouldn't they pay to help people in the absence of a tax?

In my experience, people who like taxes are people who enjoy the spoils of politics. No one who makes serious money equates taxes with voluntary charity. In other words, Bill Gates is happy to give to charity, but he's in no rush to give it to government, because he knows what the score is. He's not an idiot.

I agree with pretty much everything in your post. Especially the last part. I have been meeting a lot of liberal-minded individuals lately, and they're all very pro-tax, pro-social programs, etc. Support of that from some of them is very ironic, I think, because they happen to run successful, financially self-sufficient non-profits (you read that right). So they're doing what you and I (I assume) would agree they should be doing. Charity that doesn't rely on confiscating the wealth of others, but on actual charity (and in this case, business savvy). Social entrepreneurs are cool.

But my point was, regarding your last paragraph, that I was struck by very much the same thoughts as I lunched with a group of these individuals late last week. The ones that rallied the strongest for social programs and government handouts were the ones who were least successful in life.

 

[BradM]

I'm not so concerned with having a debate on morality and infrastructure. If I wanted to pay for socialism I would have stayed in Canada. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I simply don't enjoy paying for Octo-mom's Mac makeup with my tax money. I also don't work my ass off to pay for Shaneekwa's cheetos. And fuck me if I am paying taxes to push Miguel through public school, even though he is unable to read or write in English even at age 15 after 10 years in public school.

I'm not the type that argues something as fundamental to me as religion is to some of you. You believe in God. I don't believe in bloated buerocratical inefficient government. Call me a GovAthiest. You can debate it all you want, you will never turn me to a tax lover.

 

[CSampson]

TO those of you who say that our national prisons, system of roadways, and military could be sustained with 2% of the amount of taxes currently collect - you are clearly detached from reality and speaking out of your asses. And if you should want to support anything with your taxes, it is our military. If you have any understanding of international relations, business practices, economics, and domestic security this should be immediately clear to you. If it's not I urge you to think about all the different ways in which you benefit from being a citizen of the worlds only true superpower...however shitty our economy might seem right now.
I dislike the current tax scheme as much as the next guy - it fucking sucks to get my paycheck and see my pre-tax vs. what was actually wired into my account. But in the end having some level of taxation, and some agency to collect and administer the distribution of those funds, is necessary because people are too self interested to want to pay for the services that the feel they have a God given right to demand from their government.
I think that the taxation system just needs to be revamped to be made more efficient. Some issues have very simple and effective solutions. For example, every gallon of gas should be taxed just enough to cover the cost of the maintenance of the roads and highways used by that vehicle. A flat tax on each gallon of gas could achieve this rather easily.
But what programs like education? Now things get a little trickier. I don't have any kids so I shouldn't pay any taxes, right? There are many things wrong with that line of thought but one thing that jumps out at me is, "Do I want to have a vast pool of talent to draw from when I seek out employees or do I want to be faced with the prospect of dealing with illiterate, undereducated morons?" (Since this is an AM site and many are making "teh moniez" by slanging "teh berriez" it might be our immediate interests to keep the masses dumb as fuck... lol )

Shit...I actually have to get out and go do some drinking with friends so I will end my rant :music07: here but hopefully this threw a little gas on the fire.


I just downloaded this Americans for FairTaxation pdf and will take a peek to see what's going on there. Thanks for posting that up Montana!

Holy hell this post is fraught with missing words and grammatical errors but since it's WF, hopefully you will forgive me.

 

[guerilla]

The ones that rallied the strongest for social programs and government handouts were the ones who were least successful in life.

That's the way it always is. And the successful and wealthy pay these people off to avoid being targets of greed and envy. It's cheaper to donate 10% of your income to charity than it is to prosecuted for anti-trust. Do-gooders usually bleed with the blood from someone else's heart.

You can debate it all you want, you will never turn me to a tax lover.

Anyone who values their labor will value it too much to have it taken away and used carelessly.

TO those of you who say that our national prisons, system of roadways, and military could be sustained with 2% of the amount of taxes currently collect - you are clearly detached from reality and speaking out of your asses.

No one said that. No one.

But in the end having some level of taxation, and some agency to collect and administer the distribution of those funds, is necessary because people are too self interested to want to pay for the services that the feel they have a God given right to demand from their government.

Maybe no one has a god given right to demand anything. Do you really have a right to demand your neighbor's labor or property?

Anyone who wants some more food for thought on this (fair tax is horrible btw, it taxes trade which means you get less trade),

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair - Laurence M. Vance

Some videos.

John Stossel - Education

John Stossel - Greed

John Stossel Bailouts and Government Bull (first segment is private roads iirc)

 

[Fatbat]

Read today that Gibraltar has signed a tax treaty with the US that should go into effect some time later this year, so you can scratch Gibraltar off your list of potential places to hide your money.

 

[xentech]

Pfft, try living in the UK if you think taxes are a joke.

 

[Damain]

This is the law stopping you from going down the route of an offshore company:

Controlled Foreign Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The formation agents' sites never mention that, even the non-spammy looking ones.

 

[amanda11]

CanaryIslandsPress - Invisible Money, Low-Profile Banking and Investing

Thank me later.

 

[mediasup]

I dont condone or recommend "asset protection" unless speaking to a tax attorney and a experienced CPA to make sure you are doing it by the book. But here is a great place to start hxxp://www.offshorelegal.org/bullet-proof-asset-protection.html