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

[amagimetals]

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 exist because of poor property rights. If we had better property rights, by allowing the free market protect property rights rather than the government, there wouldn't be externalities.

[1714952030]

1714952030

[1714952030]

1714952030

[1714952030]

1714952030

[1714952030]

1714952030

[Rudd-O]

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?

Myrkul, I wanna share something with you, that happened in this interaction.  I want to call your attention on how you let Dalkore change the topic.  He had to answer your question, so you could continue make the argument that you were going to make.  In answering your question, he said this:

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.  

...thereby changing the topic from the point you were trying to make, to a different argument to support the criminals we call "State".

He threw you a red herring, and you (you all, really) bit.  He managed to derail the previous topic right out of the conversation, and gain control of the conversation again.

People: don't bite; stay on target.  Realize his manipulation for what it is: an attempt to put you in the defensive.

[myrkul]

Actually, I'd call what he did conceding my point, and then attempting to make another one.

[Rudd-O]

Actually, I'd call what he did conceding my point, and then attempting to make another one.

That's exactly what happened, in reality.  He just didn't openly concede your point.  At this point, I usually stop people, thanking them for conceding, delineate a clear distinction between their former (now-defeated) argument and the new argument, and then ask them to openly concede, or else I won't address their new argument.

That way makes it very clear what just happened.

[hahahafr]

Hate these politics guys.
You want companies to stop using tax loopholes? --> CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Otherwise? --> STFU.

[Dalkore]

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.

How are you going to capture your damages from your winning settlement?  Come force my "private" bank to give it up.   Maybe my private is the bank where there motto is "we don't give up your money to anyone".   This is what I am talking about, your voluntary system does not work without an actual third party strong enough to enforce compliance.

[Dalkore]

Actually, I'd call what he did conceding my point, and then attempting to make another one.

Yes I did, this is called debate and discourse.   I have no ulterior motives other than to change your mind about this form of government.    Rudd-O you need to pay attention more.

[Dalkore]

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.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

[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.

How are you going to capture your damages from your winning settlement?  Come force my "private" bank to give it up.   Maybe my private is the bank where there motto is "we don't give up your money to anyone".   This is what I am talking about, your voluntary system does not work without an actual third party strong enough to enforce compliance.

Well, you're welcome to take that tactic, but then, I'm not obligated to buy your product, either. Neither is anyone else. And if you're going to be a dick about dumping poison into the river and then not paying to clean it up, I'm for damn sure going to make sure that all my friends, family, acquaintances, online peer groups, and random passerby on the street know that you're being a dick about it, and if they don't want to support you dumping poison into rivers, they should not buy your product, either.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

Even the poorest families in the US have color TVs. Before you say that this doesn't mean anything in context, I assure you it does. If you think about it for a second, you may even see what.

[Dalkore]

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.

How are you going to capture your damages from your winning settlement?  Come force my "private" bank to give it up.   Maybe my private is the bank where there motto is "we don't give up your money to anyone".   This is what I am talking about, your voluntary system does not work without an actual third party strong enough to enforce compliance.

Well, you're welcome to take that tactic, but then, I'm not obligated to buy your product, either. Neither is anyone else. And if you're going to be a dick about dumping poison into the river and then not paying to clean it up, I'm for damn sure going to make sure that all my friends, family, acquaintances, online peer groups, and random passerby on the street know that you're being a dick about it, and if they don't want to support you dumping poison into rivers, they should not buy your product, either.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

Even the poorest families in the US have color TVs. Before you say that this doesn't mean anything in context, I assure you it does. If you think about it for a second, you may even see what.

I am giving an example, I would never dump or do harm to others intentionally without just cause.   Boycott is an effective tactic on the past, problem is that people these days don't know how to really standup to the powers that be these days and continue to keep the pressure on.


Well TVs are not just for entertainment so I will leave it at that. 

But I see where your going and yes, we have a much higher standard of poor than even 50 years ago. I still would like to know what happens when someone who is truly poor can not pay for a basic service in your society.

[myrkul]

But I see where your going and yes, we have a much higher standard of poor than even 50 years ago. I still would like to know what happens when someone who is truly poor can not pay for a basic service in your society.

Then they probably don't have a job, a house, or anything else to rub together. That's not just poor, that's destitute. Charities exist to help people like that, I've received the aid of one of them myself, when I was going through a rough patch. And my point was not that we have a higher standard of poor, but the closely related fact that the market will provide even the poorest members of society (unless, as I say, they're absolutely flat busted broke) with their desires. Poor people want color TVs. So they get them. Perhaps the TV doesn't have Picture in Picture, or the ability to tune in five million channels, and perhaps it is not 51 inches, but it is in color, and can tune the local stations reliably. So if there is a need for low-cost basic services, they will be provided.

[Rudd-O]

Hate these politics guys.
You want companies to stop using tax loopholes? --> CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Otherwise? --> STFU.

The people who want companies to stop using tax loopholes are entirely powerless to change the holy papers.

The people who benefit from the tax loopholes (in oh so many ways) who are elected by the abovementioned chumps, have absolutely no interest, desire, or incentive to change the holy papers.

Democracy.  It does the societal cancer good.

[Rudd-O]

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.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

Instead of demanding that people solve your questions, why not come up with an answer yourself?  Difficulty level: you are not allowed to use or advocate for aggression against nonaggressive people.  Hey, statist, can't answer a question yourself without asking "will this be in the test?"

(I understand that is difficulty 11 for statists, but hey, why must voluntaryists be the ones to explain every little detail about how non-aggresison works?  If he is genuinenly interested in an answer to the question -- rather than idly wasting people's time with questions whose answers he will never accept -- surely he will volunteer a reasonable and workable answer.  It's not rocket science.)

Seriuosly, the mark of intelligence, of productivity, of decency, of rationality, of well-doing, isn't asking questions to obvious answers.  It is providng answers.  I have seen myrkul provide countless answers (most of which have been derided and discredited through namecalling by idiots here).  How about we hold statists to their stringent standards?  Or are they too cowardly to take some of their own heat?  Shit, I give several hundreds of my own Bitcoins every year to people who are doing good, why the fuck should I (or any other voluntaryist) answer questions for cocksuckers who want me put in a cage for wanting to give to these causes more, and getting robbed less?

How do you run a society without violence?  You help, bitch.  You help.  That's what you do.  If you think people won't help, then don't suggest sociopathic solutions to your bullshit problem.  If you don't want to run a society like we all do, shut up about the fucking question, because you really don't fucking care.

[Anon136]

i know these guys are in bed with the cia and all but is it just me or does it seem as if they do so much more good than harm on net. Just the other day they had a petition against some new internet censorship bill right on google.com main page. Perhaps the elites are beginning to lose control of what used to be their machine? Or put differently the states emulation of capitalism is, despite the states best efforts, breaking free of its bonds and becoming real capitalism.

Any good propaganda has a seed of truth, otherwise no one would be convinced by it. This "breaking of the bonds" is a controlled event long planned for, and they have a new and improved set of chains waiting for you on the other side. All you have to do is click accept.



As far as the OP subject matter, as a regular every day person try walking into the IRS and telling them that. See how fast they repo everything but your dirty drawers. As an individual I believe this is a healthy mindset, the economy crushes individuals and small businesses and ANY advantage should be taken. IMO commercial entities, especially those that have a monopoly on an industry have a special responsibility to pay their fair share so YOU AND I don't have to pay ours AND THEIRS. Believe me, currently we pay so companies like google don't have to.

If i want two candy bars and the guy next to me wants one candy bar he pays half as much as me, he pays his fair share. The market is where people pay their fair share. If i drive on a private road twice as often as joe i pay twice as much as joe, this is my fair share. Government is the place where people who don't use the roads at all pay 1000 times as much for the roads as some other people who use them all the time. Government is the only place where things get wacky and some people pay amounts that are not fair. Taxation isnt paying your fair share, paying your fair share is paying your fair share, donating to a charity is paying your fair share, donating towards the building of a road is paying your fair share. taxation is the use of violence to force other people to pay what you believe is their fair share to the people you believe they owe it to.

I completely agree with your statement. I did however state it was my opinion. This is more along the lines of the message I was trying to communicate:

He is correct on this.   We should incentivize companies to pay a fair tax and create domestic jobs for the nation they are headquartered in.  They have gain a significant advantage being able to pool capital as a corporation.  With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country.  If not then it is acting like a parasite.   There is no free lunch.

Ok well first let me debunk the parasite bit. Even if we assume (falsely but thats neither here no there) for the sake of argument that the share holders are not providing any value by creating new products and selling them in the market, the idea that they are parasitic relies on the assumption that they are not only not providing a net benefit to society but that the act of incorporation somehow imposes a cost on others. In order to demonstrate that incorporated persons are inherently parasitic you would need to demonstrate that in the absence of taxation a) the act of incorporation would tend to impose a cost on others b) this cost would tend to not be outweighed by the advantages to society provided by the act of incorporation.

ok so now debunking the parasite thing isnt good enough. The post also claims that if group a enjoys some form of competitive advantage over group b than group b is entitled to some from of compensation at the expense of group a. It asserts this as if it is taken for granted but it is not taken for granted by everyone and so requires some elaboration. As specifically as possible, why is group b entitled to the products of group a's labor in the aforementioned example?

The post does get one thing right, if incorporated persons where inherently parasitic than the general public would be entitled to some form of compensation for damages.

[DTD]

There is nothing wrong with nationalism, as long as it is not supremacist. People seem to be unable to get that there was a time when the two words weren't bound together conceptually. Currently nationalism is a reality of our economy. Most of the world has no problem being nationalist. We can talk about globalist utopias all day, but in that margin set aside for "globalism" the other nations will happily displace the resources which another nations once consumed and simply shift nationalist power. I do not think we will or should have a global government. Human beings are far too socially immature to allow control over the entire globe to be allowed to be had by a very small handful of people. There are too many unique differences in each place on the planet to be homogenized into a giant global "melting pot" without destroying exactly what makes them unique.

Each man a nation.

[Rudd-O]

Nationalism is the belief that being born in an arbitrary plot of land that you didn't choose, somehow makes you superior or more worthy than being born outside said plot of land.

Nationalism is an insane belief, as insane as thinking that having faith in a certain invisible magical being is superior to having faith in a different invisible magical being.

Nationalism is also a very dangerous belief, because it predisposes people to collectivize strangers from different plots of land and believe evil and false things about them.  And you all know what is enabled by such an odious collective belief (hint: the rulers can use this to order the peasants to mass murder the other peasants, and their peasants will happily comply).

When you break beliefs into their structural components ("people doing things"), pretty much all modern cultural beliefs are simply insane.

[DTD]

Nationalism is the belief that being born in an arbitrary plot of land that you didn't choose, somehow makes you superior or more worthy than being born outside said plot of land.

Nationalism is an insane belief, as insane as thinking that having faith in a certain invisible magical being is superior to having faith in a different invisible magical being.

Nationalism is also a very dangerous belief, because it predisposes people to collectivize strangers from different plots of land and believe evil and false things about them.  And you all know what is enabled by such an odious collective belief (hint: the rulers can use this to order the peasants to mass murder the other peasants, and their peasants will happily comply).

When you break beliefs into their structural components ("people doing things"), pretty much all modern cultural beliefs are simply insane.

I think you're severely oversimplifying both concepts.

Both of these things exist because they appeal to certain built-in human qualities.

The problem is that the natural expression of these things is usurped and exploited by the powerful to their own ends.

[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.

Myrkul - What happens to people in this society who can not afford a basic service?

Simple math shows that charity dollars outperform tax dollars in helping the poor by 233.33%.

http://nomorecages.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-facts-part-1.aspx

[Lethos]

As already pointed out, this happens a lot, but the problem is their own loopholes, in many countries, including the UK.
I don't like what Google is doing, it's cheeky as hell, but if legally they can do it, that is the governments problem. Their own law allowed them.
Remove or close them loopholes, problem solved. They could stop it if they wanted, by changing the laws.
Problem is the people capable of changing them also like or use those loopholes so they'll won't be too inclined to do that.

Tax laws from little I know are a total mess, filled with addition after addition, allowing for loopholes everywhere.
Simplicity is needed, not another band aid, no if or buts or maybes in the right situation, can you avoid paying your taxes.

[DTD]

As already pointed out, this happens a lot, but the problem is their own loopholes, in many countries, including the UK.
I don't like what Google is doing, it's cheeky as hell, but if legally they can do it, that is the governments problem. Their own law allowed them.
Remove or close them loopholes, problem solved. They could stop it if they wanted, by changing the laws.
Problem is the people capable of changing them also like or use those loopholes so they'll won't be too inclined to do that.

Tax laws from little I know are a total mess, filled with addition after addition, allowing for loopholes everywhere.
Simplicity is needed, not another band aid, no if or buts or maybes in the right situation, can you avoid paying your taxes.

I'll just leave this here... http://mises.org/daily/6310/Long-Live-the-Loophole

Perhaps it could whet your appetite.