61–70 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if there existed some impartial authority to make rules.
"Everyone else", is the idea. For example, if you wrote the tax law, you could say "let's tax everyone but me" But if everyone writes the tax law together, nobody will let you exempt yourself, and you won't let them exempt themselves. Like some kind of law-making standoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crime and Punishment is a thick book, there must be a Reader's Digest version somewhere. Try it.
The poster you are responding to is making a utilitarian moral argument. You are referencing a novel that explores the a common source of crime (poverty) and the chain of events that follows. I don't see the connection. :-S
Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong". It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing…
Are you suggesting that speech can't be "wrong"?
BTW, thanks for a reasonable and incisive response.
Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. I've looked into offshore banking and shell companies and the like a bit over the years. I'm not sure why; I guess I just have a fascination with business and finance. My conclusion has long been that, for an individual who intends to comply with the l…
Don't you only become liable to pay the tax when you repatriate the money? So perhaps you can spend it outside the US with impunity?
For every country (3) where I have filed taxes, you are liable for individual taxes as soon as you earn the income. So, in the case of a legitimate business, as soon as you pay yourself a salary or other benefit (perhaps, buy yourself a yacht; really, anything that is not a clear business expense). It doesn't matter where in the world you earn the income or spend it; you are taxed on your worldwide income.
However, to take it a step further, the IRS doesn't really recognize personal holding companies as legitimate businesses for tax purposes. You are liable to pay tax on any investment income as though it were personal income even if you leave it in the company name. Again, it doesn't matter where in the world the holding company is.
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they pla…
The analogy I use is how people go shopping in a neighboring state for lower sales taxes, or buy a house in an inconvenient place for lower property taxes. Wealthier people are doing the same thing. People get angry more so because they don't get the privilege to participate in those advantages. While simultaneously taking advantage of what they can.
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they pla…
The analogy I use is how people go shopping in a neighboring state for lower sales taxes, or buy a house in an inconvenient place for lower property taxes. Wealthier people are doing the same thing. People get angry more so because they don't get the privilege to participate in those advantages. While simultaneously taking advantage of what they can.
Y-scale is the taxes paid
X-scale is the income
As you can see... people in middle class and lower play by the rules almost perfectly. Now the richest don't play anymore. There are those that play by the rules, but a lot of those that don't.
Finland has a progressive income tax.
So let's stop the bullshit that everything does it. This picture shows it clearly that only the richest are the assholes (in meaningful way).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The analogy I use is how people go shopping in a neighboring state for lower sales taxes, or buy a house in an inconvenient place for lower property taxes. Wealthier people are doing the same thing. People get angry more so because they don't get the privilege to participate in those advantages. While simultaneously taking advantage of what they can.
Well, this picture is from Finland (a country with very small differences in incomes): http://hs10.snstatic.fi/webkuva/taysi/630/1460170330858?ts=5... Y-scale is the taxes paid X-scale is the income As you can see... people in middle class and lower play by the rules almost perfectly. Now the richest don't play anymore. There are those that play by the rules, but a lot of those that don't. Finland has a progressive i…
The state needs to make better rules, obviously passive taxation has pitiful compliance outcomes.
It's quite simple. It's never wrong to reveal facts. It's always right to reveal facts. It's always wrong to hide facts.
I don't believe it is quite that simple. Suppose you're a gay man living in Yemen. I do not accept any definition of "right" or morality that would compel me to disclose that information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Wow, a "free speech absolutist". How absolute? So if I am a voyeur, poke a camera through your window and put it on the Internet that's OK per my free speech rights? I break into your bank's website and leak all the usernames and passwords -- I can be prosecuted for the…
"Poking a camera through your window" is "hacking" now? Wow! Sure, I would prefer that you not do that, or indeed that you not physically trespass in any way. A more interesting hypothetical would be for thousands of homeowners to install a bunch of IP cameras in their homes, and for you to hack those without the benefit of physical trespass. I don't think you'd have much of a leg to stand on if you were to publish J…
Stand on against what? You seem to be arguing that it should be perfectly OK to do exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crime and Punishment is a thick book, there must be a Reader's Digest version somewhere. Try it.
The poster you are responding to is making a utilitarian moral argument. You are referencing a novel that explores the a common source of crime (poverty) and the chain of events that follows. I don't see the connection. :-S
(spoiler alert - this utilitarian moral argument didn't work too well for Rodion)