Eric Schmidt: "I'm proud of our tax avoidance scheme...it's called capitalism"

[Rudd-O]

Yes is does, the nation you live in matters.  If you don't care about it at all then your a poor example of its citizenry.   I am American and I care about the general welfare of other Americans.   I also disagree with our current policies and I do what I can not to give me consent to it.  But I am still American and care about its people.   I also care about other nations and hope they feel the same way about their nation as well.  Under those terms I hope we can continually finds ways to peacefully works together and trade.

I guess we just have different values. I care about the human race no matter where they come from, not just some group of people living in some imaginary boundaries. Of course I care about the general welfare of my neighbor, someone I know, more than someone in Asia that I do not know. I can't really say that I care about the general welfare of someone I don't know living in California more so than someone I don't know living in the EU. They are both human.

From an economic perspective the poorest people in America are richer than the middle class/richest people in many other countries. So, if you think time/money will help educate/clothe/feed people in poorer countries, then every $1/minute you spend helping the poor in other countries will give those people a lot more value than it would if you spent the money/time on poor people in the USA. So in effect you are helping the human race more.

Brilliantly true. Also congrats on the new biz.

[1714112603]

1714112603

[1714112603]

1714112603

[1714112603]

1714112603

[1714112603]

1714112603

[1714112603]

1714112603

[thebaron]

ERMAHGERD THEY USEDED A CHEAT CODE!

[Dalkore]

Yes is does, the nation you live in matters.  If you don't care about it at all then your a poor example of its citizenry.   I am American and I care about the general welfare of other Americans.   I also disagree with our current policies and I do what I can not to give me consent to it.  But I am still American and care about its people.   I also care about other nations and hope they feel the same way about their nation as well.  Under those terms I hope we can continually finds ways to peacefully works together and trade.

From an economic perspective the poorest people in America are richer than the middle class/richest people in many other countries. So, if you think time/money will help educate/clothe/feed people in poorer countries, then every $1/minute you spend helping the poor in other countries will give those people a lot more value than it would if you spent the money/time on poor people in the USA. So in effect you are helping the human race more.

Ahh and it reveals itself.


Yes we do have more infrastructure than many poorer countries but do not forget that things are priced in a more expensive currency and cost more in most cases.  Our cost of living is high and keeps getting higher.

[myrkul]

Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle:

With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. 

How do you think those companies get their money?

Care to answer?

[Dalkore]

Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle:

With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. 

How do you think those companies get their money?

Care to answer?

Not sure that you asking.   I will give a shot to what I think your asking though.  I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for.

[myrkul]

Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle:

With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. 

How do you think those companies get their money?

Care to answer?

Not sure that you asking.   I will give a shot to what I think your asking though.  I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for.

Exactly. And do these products or services not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

[Dalkore]

Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle:

With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. 

How do you think those companies get their money?

Care to answer?

Not sure that you asking.   I will give a shot to what I think your asking though.  I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for.

Exactly. And do these products or services not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

[firefop]

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations.

[myrkul]

I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for.

Exactly. And do these products or services not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

If they wish to maintain it, yes, and given that it's how they were able to provide the goods or services in the past, and presumably how they would be able to do so in the future, why would they not wish to maintain it?

Since they clearly would wish to maintain it, what purpose is there to forcing them to maintain it?

[johnyj]

The biggest tax evaders are banks, they have many instruments to hide their income

[SgtSpike]

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations.

^ That's disgusting... no wonder so many businesses are high-tailing it out of there.

[Brunic]

I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for.

Exactly. And do these products or services not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

If they wish to maintain it, yes, and given that it's how they were able to provide the goods or services in the past, and presumably how they would be able to do so in the future, why would they not wish to maintain it?

Since they clearly would wish to maintain it, what purpose is there to forcing them to maintain it?

Well, the UK could simply send them the health insurance bill if they want to have the liberty of doing so. They could also send them the bill for the usage of the roads they used, for the water pipes they used, police to protect their things and so on.

I think they should make a fiscal law where executives and shareholders linked with a corporation would have to pay every part of public service they use for that corporation.

[myrkul]

I think they should make a fiscal law where executives and shareholders linked with a corporation would have to pay every part of public service they use for that corporation.

Yes, that's called Anarcho-capitalism.

[Dalkore]

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations.

Cite your source.   

Well what people should be doing on any issue that they have a problem with, is come up with a better solution and lobby the hell out of it so that a dialogue and start and work on a compromise if your new solution is superior than the law you think is inferior. 

[amagimetals]

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations.

Cite your source.   

Well what people should be doing on any issue that they have a problem with, is come up with a better solution and lobby the hell out of it so that a dialogue and start and work on a compromise if your new solution is superior than the law you think is inferior. 

It's legislation, not law. Solution: let people/businesses make their own personal decisions and take responsibility for their actions whether they are "good" or "bad."

[420]

what, are they using bitcoins?

[Dalkore]

They do.  But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum.  They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit.  From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. 

So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations.

Cite your source.   

Well what people should be doing on any issue that they have a problem with, is come up with a better solution and lobby the hell out of it so that a dialogue and start and work on a compromise if your new solution is superior than the law you think is inferior. 

It's legislation, not law. Solution: let people/businesses make their own personal decisions and take responsibility for their actions whether they are "good" or "bad."

And how would people/business take responsibility for their actions?   It is taught in business school to externalize as much as you can, they are call externalities.  What if their decisions have a direct affect on me in a negative way?  What should happen then?  How would it be administered?   And by whom?

[Brunic]

I think they should make a fiscal law where executives and shareholders linked with a corporation would have to pay every part of public service they use for that corporation.

Yes, that's called Anarcho-capitalism.

Mmm, you're starting to convince me. I like my socialist state, but I don't like when multi-nationals corporations come here, take all benefits and get their money out. It could be interesting that if a business is a multi-national, the anarcho-capitalism apply to that business. You come here, you pay no taxes, the government send you a bill and you deal with it. It cost too much? Go elsewhere or pay your taxes like everybody else.

Multi-national businesses are a poison anyway, since they are always owned by strangers and don't develop the local economy that much.

[myrkul]

And how would people/business take responsibility for their actions?   It is taught in business school to externalize as much as you can, they are call externalities.  What if their decisions have a direct affect on me in a negative way?  What should happen then?  How would it be administered?   And by whom?

Externalities require that you are actually able to externalize all those costs. For instance, by dumping chemicals in a river instead of treating them.

With gov't regulations, you can buy a congressman or twelve, and get laws passed that let you do that. Without the government to do that, you're left dealing with the people who live downstream from you. Nothing like a big damage settlement to re-internalize a cost.

[myrkul]

I think they should make a fiscal law where executives and shareholders linked with a corporation would have to pay every part of public service they use for that corporation.

Yes, that's called Anarcho-capitalism.

Mmm, you're starting to convince me. I like my socialist state, but I don't like when multi-nationals corporations come here, take all benefits and get their money out. It could be interesting that if a business is a multi-national, the anarcho-capitalism apply to that business. You come here, you pay no taxes, the government send you a bill and you deal with it. It cost too much? Go elsewhere or pay your taxes like everybody else.

That's really close, except there's no monopoly government. It's just a collection of service providers. Some offering competing services. Trash pickup, for instance, or road paving, phone service, etc. Either you pay, or you don't get that service.