Wesley Snipes will now be Bubba's "girlfriend" for 3 years.

This is false. Corporations provide legal protections that could be cheaper than not paying taxes. Your statement is based upon absolute theory, which is a contradiction.

And the tax on wages are passed on as well. Geez Will, this is econ 101 stuff. Get real.

If the US had no income tax, we would have no labor shortages. People would be willing to work more hours and not take a penalty on their overtime.

Our productivity would soar, and like most tax havens, we would attract lots of investment and skilled labor.

State taxes are different. I am speaking strictly about income taxes. Prior to 1913, we didn't have an income tax. And even when it came in, it was tiny relative to today. A few %.

Right now, our government spends beyond what they bring in for taxes anyways. We could pay $1, or $3 trillion, and the budget will not change.

The difference is, they will print the difference, and tax everyone by devaluing the currency already in circulation.

Quite simply, we need a smaller government, and a good way to do that, is to slash their revenue and remove the collateral on the lender of last resort. Besides, most people might be shocked to know that

1) If we cut out the income tax, we would have the same tax revenues as 10 years ago.

2) Currently income tax goes almost exclusively to servicing the debt. Corporate taxes, tariffs, user fees etc are what pay for our services and military.

 

I think people would work less, since you don't have to work as much to earn the same amount.

 

That argument doesn't hold up, because would have to explain how me maintain the same level of production with less work.

Remember, money is just an arbitrary numerical measure. You still have to follow basics like Say's Law, that production has to occur before consumption.

 

Sad news. They are making an example of him. Pathetic! Even more reason not to trust the government.

 

Well if the people earned more from the same amount of work there would also be not enough production...exactly like working less for equal money.

 

Thank you for asking.

Let's look at the same situation from another angle.

If everyone works making $100k, and paying 40% tax, keeping $60,000 they produce

200 loaves of bread
20 Televisions
4 cars

Now tax is eliminated, and people want to work 60% less, and they can make the same $60,000.

We now produce

120 loaves of bread
12 Televisions
3 cars

So with less work, comes less production. They don't make more products in less time just because tax has been removed.

So with less goods, there is still the same number of dollars $60,000 chasing those goods. Prices fell when the cost of tax came out of the production cost, but it rises again that the goods are more scarce and there is competition to buy them.

In the end, we get shortages or price inflation.

So the people can decide to go back to work, which makes them more money, and produces more goods, making them less scarce, and prices begin to fall again. Eventually, we'll see some equilibrium. Maybe the employees will have to work 80% as much, to buy the same volume of goods with their zero-tax income.

This is still a productive gain though, because they now have 20% more free time, to read poetry, to make love, to build houses, to write books, to play with their kids, to find another job, to grow their own vegetables, whatever.

That's Say's Law. You have to produce before you consume. You can't expect to cut production and continue consumption indefinitely.

Something many people don't think about is the cost of air. It's free. Why? Because there are few barriers to breathing, and air is in (relatively) unlimited supply. But any good which has to be produced, requires materials and labor, and has constraints on how fast it can be produced, and for how much energy. This creates scarcity. It's in finite supply.

This is why socialism always fails. It presumes that we can all have equal shares of everything, regardless of productive input. And the shares we have will satisfy not just our needs, but our wants.

Our wants are limitless.

 

If i'm correct Wesley will be going to a federal prison where there are not so many bubbas. In fact, he may be the bubba in his cell.

Smatts, do you care to provide the law for us that states we pay income taxes that does NOT go against Supreme Court cases?

 

3 years in prison because you didn't file 3 years of tax returns? The IRS is scary, but with this new "example" they are even more scary.

Wasn't it just a hundred years ago that we didn't have an IRS or a FED? What the heck happend?

 

It is getting scarier by the minute. One day people will wake up in a complete totalitarian dictatorship in America and will ask themselves that exact same question. What the hell happened?

 

I think the punishement for Mr. Snipes is just too harsh, they should at least lower the years of sentence.

 

Blahahahaaaaa... are you really so much of an idiot that you think business owners will trade TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAXES for the weak protection of the corporate veil.

Get real. If you tax businesses and not individuals, corporations will simply re-invent themselves as sole proprietorships and partnerships.

They will take 1% of the money they save on taxes and spend that on lawyers and insurance -- both of which are better protection than the almost nonexistent legal protections provided by corporate law.

Have you ever operated a C corporation?

Do you even know the differences between C and S corps?

Man... seriously... you need to study more than propaganda videos on YouTube.

 

Will,

1) You are being insulting, which is a sure sign you are losing the argument (again)

2) You obviously don't know as much as you pretend to about business, because you can't buy the asset and liability protection you gain from incorporation, by hiring lots of lawyers.

3) In order to raise large amounts of capital via a stock sell off to the general public, a company must be incorporated.

4) If corporations do move to proprietorship and partnership models, that's much closer to a libertarian ideal, than state created corporate entites that have super legal powers that trend towards monopoly.

 

Bubba sends his best regards.......

 

You have it completely backwards. The "corporate veil" is almost useless now. Lawyers, on the other hand, are still quite useful. Business insurance is much more so.

If I had to give up any of those three for either of my major corporations, I would without question give up the useless "corporate veil" first.

There are several other models for raising capital. Stock ownership in corporations is just one. Go study.

This is nonsense -- and it's not even libertarian nonsense.

You're spouting Marxist propaganda. I think you tuned into the wrong YouTube propaganda channel by accident.

Corporations don't have "super legal powers." Corporations are merely legal constructs to allow people to do business more easily.

Corporations ARE people and people ARE corporations. You can't destroy the legal rights of one without harming the legal rights of the other.

Enough with the silly Marxist class-warfare crap.

 

I think we've already covered that you are sorely lacking in libertarian philosophy or understanding.

The smallest unit of control or government or determination is best. And hence, shrinking large corporations down.... BONUS!

Re: capital, provide an example of say, how Google could have raised the capital it did in it's IPO.

Oh man, name calling again? I don't believe in class warfare, particular Marxist class warfare. Nor have I posted anything that could be construed as that, because, again, I don't believe in it.

Save the name calling and come with strong arguments Will. Teaching you the ways of the Force has been more arduous than I had imagined.

Corporations do have super legal powers. They are the only construct that has a legal identity and isn't a person. They have "personhood" under the law, something we deny to unborn infants. I would call that pretty super legal.

Well, if the corporation has personhood, and hence investor assets are protected against liability, then your point is moot.

I win, again.

 

You are a complete failure as a libertarian. You are a totalitarian who only pretends to libertarianism.

Incorrect. Your rights do not magically increase when you take away the rights of others.

In fact, the opposite is true. Your crusade to take away the rights of other Americans would, if you were successful, result in you having decreased rights.

That's idiocy. Corporations have powered defined to them under the law. Therefore, they cannot be "super legal."

It appears that you don't understand either my arguments or your own.

Perhaps you need to study more propaganda videos so that at least you understand your own arguments. You are parroting them poorly.

 

Will, you'll need to do better than namecall, if you want to overcome the butt whupping I lay on you when it comes to libertarian arguments.

I never said they did.

Take away what rights? Corporations don't exist in the wild. They only exist by government fiat. Again, this is why you don't "get" libertarianism. You don't understand the non-aggression axiom, and you clearly do not understand natural, positive or negative rights.

I understand your arguments, and you probably do as well. The problem is, you work from a flawed premise of what libertarianism is.

You're really a neoconservative in philosophy.

More Ad Hominem can only mean...

I WIN AGAIN! w0000t!