Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Massachusetts Software Tax

fastcolabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#191

Post by brokenmusic »

millstone wrote: post #173
brokenmusic wrote: post #10

Until people realize that all taxes are theft, they're doomed to have new taxes imposed on the most productive of them. It's really a simple test to see whether taxes are theft or not: if there was no way for IRS to find out how much money anyone made, would people still be paying taxes? My guess is that 90% of people who preach about the social contract and helping the poor would keep the money.

> It's really a simple test to see whether taxes are theft or not: if there was no way for IRS to find out how much money anyone made, would people still be paying taxes? This "test" is hilarious! If stores could not determine how much merchandise you had in your cart, more people would shoplift. So prices in stores are theft! If you could not determine if someone else drove your car, then your neighbor might sneak a…

If there was no way to detect the contents of the cart, shoplifting rates would increase, but not to a dramatic number. It's because stores don't force people to visit them and buy things. They offer.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#192

Post by sophacles »

thecodeore wrote: post #180
sophacles wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not that they are statists. Its that you present everything in hyperbolic absurdities. You want to make everything you do voluntary yet think that it will somehow lead to a world where everything is rainbows and unicorns, because like a teen you refuse to accept the world doesn't give a shit about you, nor does everyone think or act as you pretend you would in such a fantasy land

Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. Statism is believe the state should exist, any person that support the state, even a minimal state is a Statist. >You want to make everything you do voluntary yet think that it will somehow lead to a world where everything is rainbows and unicorns, Not at all, infact it is statists that believe in Utopia,…

1. Stop being stupid. You know I didn't declare people to not be statists but instead declared that statism snt what made them think you are a teenager. The disingenuous way you used my reply to grandstand is a great teenage doucher move tho.

2. Can you provide the slightest evidence that what you advocate turns out any way other than somalia? By this I mean actual historical evidence... not hour wishful thinking or ranting about force and violence. Evidence is not the same as you letting out your opression fetish. No one cares how you get off, we just want evidence of your idiotic claims.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#193

Post by tempestn »

hqsavvy wrote: post #181
tempestn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your customer voluntarily offered to give away $700k out of the kindness of their hearts, to help the officers of a failed former vendor? Regardless of the size of the corporation, that's pretty incredible. Any idea why they agreed to do that?

Simple. Our former customer is a megacorp and their legal department was not worried about it. [added] The definition of "taxable service" may or may not have applied in our case. We were without resources to challenge the fact so as far as we were concerned the ruling and payment demand would stand as presented. The mega corp was so large that they had a legal department devoted to minimizing tax and this was just o…

For sure, it just seems like the megacorp's legal department would be more likely to decide that the easiest way to minimize the tax was to not voluntarily accept it in the first place.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#194

Post by rayiner »

mcv wrote: post #185
bobbydavid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen that d3 visualization of the US federal budget? It's pretty interesting. Social security, Defense, and Medicare make up the lion's share of spending. you probably don't use these (except defense, arguably indirectly, but I suspect your politics would disagree with the budget size)

He's probably using social security and medicare more than defense. The chance that he gets sick or unemployed is probably a lot larger than the chance that the US gets attacked or significantly threatened. Knowing that you're covered in case anything goes wrong is enough to make the taxes worth it.

That's kind of a misleading comparison. The chances of the US getting attacked or threatened are low because we have tremendous war capability. For examples of the opposite, see Tibet, Palestine, etc, or all the countries that were colonized by the Europeans, or the countries whose natural resources are being extracted on questionably favorable terms by companies like Shell.

Every American benefits from the fact that we can dictate terms in nearly any interaction with other countries. It's a huge aspect of our political dynamic that most Americans take for granted, because they have no experience with a country where the democratic will has to be tempered by considerations of how military superiors will respond.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#195

Post by Houshalter »

georgefox wrote: post #120
Houshalter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really true. You can avoid most if not all government services and still have to pay the same amount as everyone else. They also have a monopoly on most things. It's not like you can go to a competing service.

Monopolies are really hard to avoid, which makes your statement seem a bit logically inconsistent. Combine that with the impossibility of avoiding services like military protection, the public education of your community members, the regulation and insurance of the financial markets your money flows through, plus a whole host of other things, and I have a very hard time believing your dream of avoiding government ser…

I wouldn't call any of those things services so much as arbitrary costs. The military is ridiculously larger than it would have to be to offer just defense, education is terrible and they way overspend, and the regulatory system is corrupt and does way more damage than it prevents. Not to mention alternatives for any of these things.

Besides my point is even if a group of people went into the wilderness and declared independence, the government would still go after them and have power over them, even though they aren't consuming any government services at all.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#196

Post by Houshalter »

pavedwalden wrote: post #112
Houshalter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really true. You can avoid most if not all government services and still have to pay the same amount as everyone else. They also have a monopoly on most things. It's not like you can go to a competing service.

I disagree that you can avoid using these services, because I don't think that things like public schools are a service only to their direct recipients. Even families that can afford private schools for their children benefit from living in a nation with a high literacy rate. I'm not a 'customer' of my city's social services, but I benefit from having fewer people bottom out and end up on the street.

I don't see the benefit to anyone else to having someone be educated. And if you don't use social services there is no benefit to you (not saying we shouldn't have any, but it's wrong to say they directly benefit you.)

Yes you can go far enough and find "indirect" benefits to anyone for anything, but you have to stretch it quite a bit.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#197

Post by georgefox »

Houshalter wrote: post #195
georgefox wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies are really hard to avoid, which makes your statement seem a bit logically inconsistent. Combine that with the impossibility of avoiding services like military protection, the public education of your community members, the regulation and insurance of the financial markets your money flows through, plus a whole host of other things, and I have a very hard time believing your dream of avoiding government ser…

I wouldn't call any of those things services so much as arbitrary costs. The military is ridiculously larger than it would have to be to offer just defense, education is terrible and they way overspend, and the regulatory system is corrupt and does way more damage than it prevents. Not to mention alternatives for any of these things. Besides my point is even if a group of people went into the wilderness and declared…

Are there any government services you see as valuable?

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#198

Post by CamperBob2 »

marvin wrote: post #177
CamperBob2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure glad I don't get all the police I pay for.

If you're dissatisfied with the level of service you get from the police, imagine how things would look if there were no courts, no prison system, no laws and no police.

I don't have to do that, because even though I'm usually the conservative in the crowd around here, my worldview isn't that Manichaean.

There is a middle ground between Somalia and Sacramento, believe it or not. It's where most people prefer to live.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#199

Post by brokenmusic »

millstone wrote: post #175
thallium205 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes some seriously deep-seeded, institutionalized indoctrination assaulting your mind through most of your life to believe taxation is not theft. If you do not pay your tax, violence is threatened and will be brought upon you if you do not comply. This is theft. It does not matter if the thief uses it for altruism. It does not matter if the thief forces roads and other services upon you by outlawing competition.…

The usual rebuttal to this line of argument is that property is theft. If I attempted to peacefully enter your house against your will, you would physically prevent me, or worse. By what right? I never agreed that you should have exclusive use of that land or structure. And yet you deprive me of its use through threats of violence.

If I didn't take this land my house is on from someone else by force or coercion, then you have no such right. Land is no one's product of labor. What's on it - my house - is. It was built on my money and I have all the right in the world to protect it. Communists go against nature when they declare there's no property. It simply doesn't work this way.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#200

Post by mjn »

rayiner wrote: post #194
mcv wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably using social security and medicare more than defense. The chance that he gets sick or unemployed is probably a lot larger than the chance that the US gets attacked or significantly threatened. Knowing that you're covered in case anything goes wrong is enough to make the taxes worth it.

That's kind of a misleading comparison. The chances of the US getting attacked or threatened are low because we have tremendous war capability. For examples of the opposite, see Tibet, Palestine, etc, or all the countries that were colonized by the Europeans, or the countries whose natural resources are being extracted on questionably favorable terms by companies like Shell. Every American benefits from the fact that…

It's true that the U.S. and Tibet are on opposite sides of that spectrum, but there are a number of countries whose military spending as a percentage of GDP is between 1/4 and 1/2 as high as it is in the US, but who nonetheless defend themselves credibly. Examples: France, Turkey, Italy, Australia, Canada.

I can buy that some proportion of military spending is therefore for protection, but the actual amount of military spending seems considerably higher than the amount needed to keep the U.S. from being colonized.

Post reply on HN