#taxation

Society? 🙂 our society is rotten to the core. This will get long and infuriating. 🙂
But anyway, anyone and I mean anyone, who tries to impose something on literally anyone at all (blood or not) that they do not wanna do, gives up a quarter of their property as penalty of bothering another human being. We’d do that instead of taxation. 🙂 People who hurt animals for fun, get their fingers chopped. 🙂 People who molest others, get beheaded publicly. 🙂 People who consume drugs, would be locked in recovery centres like jails. 🙂 Drug dealers will be shot at sight. 🙂
No stupid police required, everyone can have their personal weapon and use it for their safety. 🙂 Anyone who harms anyone to (oppress them or out of spite) will be made bankrupt. 🙂 and oh free ice cream, medical and educational services for everyone who lives their life without bothering any another, in anyway. 🥰
And we plant a shit ton of trees so this place looks greeeeen and no owning of orchards. Everybody can take fruits from anywhere, be it humans or animals. 🥰

View more

Well, who prosecutes the state? The state?

---

Therein lies the problem. Throughout history, most nation states have exercised some form of taxation - but most nation states have not been democracies or otherwise controlled by the governed, so this amounted to little more than extortion. The state was little more than the biggest gang around, and taxation was their protection racket. If you were a farmer in a feudal system, you gave up an extreme percentage of your harvest to the crown. Why? Because the crown sent soldiers to either collect the harvest or collect your head. At best, some of your interests might align with the crown's (for instance, you might have a mutual interest in having the military strength to resist foreign invasion), but they also often didn't.

---

In a democracy, taxation has a very different meaning. The government is OUR tool, beholden to us, tasked with organizing and executing tasks and projects that we want done collectively as a society and needs to be supplied with resources from all of us. The only time our tax dollars don't get used for something we want them used for is when we don't agree with each other, rather than with the state, in how they should be used (which is often; nations whose citizens number in the hundreds of millions will have many disagreements in how money ought and ought not be used). It isn't theft, though - if we think it is, we make our thoughts clear to the elected and unelect them if they fail to adjust. (If I think it's theft but 90% of my country doesn't, that's too bad for me - part of my civic responsibility in a democracy is to persuade my countrymen of things I think are important, or accept living in a society where I haven't.)

---

As for punishment, our society usually finds things like debtor's jails abhorrent - we don't like the idea of hard punishment for someone who was forced to choose between starvation and falling behind on bills. But that does tend to change when a person is NOT financially desperate - e.g. the Bernie Madoffs and Martin Shkrelis of the world who willfully cheat others out of deserved money out of a simple desire to be richer. If I was to write the law on tax evasion, it would remain a crime, but the punishment would depend on the means of a person to pay it (minor for a person who was genuinely unable to pay it, major for a person who chose not to despite having the means).

View more

I can see the need for taxes. But even so, the tax system in my country, favors the corporations and the very wealthy. Warren Buffet, one of the worlds richest men, said "there is something wrong, with a tax system, that makes his secretary pay more in taxes, then he does" And the guy makes multi-billions a year. But you see, the rich and the corporations, own our politicians, and by contributing to their campaigns, the politicians enact laws that create more profit for the rich and corporations. So they tilt everything to favor them. It's a sad situation over here.
Once an oil tanker ran aground in Alaska, and spilled tons of crude oil on pristine beaches, polluting the waters, killiing the wildlife, and was fined the most massive fine in history for a company to pay. And even this fine, only amounted to 15 minutes of that companies profits. How would you like to rob a bank, get caught, and have to pay a fine of say, $3 to atone for it? Corporations run our country. Not the people.

View more

In the 2010s, and especially after the last election, I don't think "liberal" and "conservative" are very well ideologically defined in the US right now, other than simply being factions that hate each other and will swallow more or less any belief so long as it's not flattering to the other side.

---

2009 saw the rise of the Tea Party on the right, which has only intensified since then and resulted in a 2016 primary where the heir apparent candidate Jeb Bush was a non-starter and the party's big players were Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, representing the religious right and the Tea Party as the now-influential planks (and still finding themselves out of touch with their base as the election was thrown to the monkey wrench candidate who's now President).

---

On the left, Barack Obama upset the Clinton dynasty back in 2008 and brought a distinctly militarily authoritarian stance with him (flying in the face of the No Blood for Oil mantras of the 2000s), and when the party more or less tried to force the Clinton dynasty back into power in 2016, they found the party controlled by a populist movement that championed Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and threw the election after the party tried to strongarm them out.

---

In the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, the left valued social liberalism, free speech, and live and let live, and the religious right counted with censorship, attempted control of pop culture, and legislating morality - in the 2010s, these have flipped. The left used to demand transparency and accountability from their government, while the right preached security over liberty - in the 2010s, these positions have reversed (maybe? The Trump administration confuses this issue a bit).

---

The thing to remember with respect to history is that the major political parties in the US have never stood for anything in particular other than winning elections. The aim of Democrats or Republicans on a national level is not to have a particular position on reproductive rights or racial equality or taxation or the military; it's simply to adopt a set of views that represents a slight majority of the American people so as to be capable of winning elections (but only a slight majority; the bigger the tent, the less flexible the party to have meaningfully distinct positions on anything, and to be able to DO anything with their victories).

---

I think we're ripe for a major redefinition of what it means in our country to be liberal or conservative, left or right, Democratic or Republican. Below is a political map of the last major time this happened, before Barry Goldwater and 1964. Notice the deep south and the west coast - and think of how it might look the next time the parties redefine themselves.

View more

So the first thing is that it isn't so much about the contents of the amendment as it is about the way it was passed.
The contents of the amendment are about a tax Amnesty. We did that recently also and got some 60,000 crores (chump change in my view but whatever). What it says is that if you now go and own up to undeclared income you have to 50% tax on it and then deposit 25% of said amount. Now whether or not this will incentivise people or not is separate. (I'm not sure if it will but let's see)
The issue is the way it was passed. The Parliament doesn't exist to just pass the law. It has to deliberate, debate and discuss the law.

---

1) The Government not only put this bill on the agenda through a supplementary list which meant no one had been given a copy of the bill yesterday or were aware that this would be up for debate so they couldn't prepare for it.

---

2) It then managed to push for its introduction despite vocal opposition.

---

3) The Speaker said no to any debate or amendment. Can you imagine this? The Parliament won't have the power to discuss the bill?!

---

4) The bill was then passed cause BJP has brute majority so yay democracy.

---

5) The bill was a money bill which means Rajya Sabha doesn't vote on it.

---

This sets a dangerous precedent. Today it was just a tax amendment. Tomorrow it could be something else. Something much more sinister. Modi clearly doesn't value Parliament. He barely ever comes to it. The Government is following his lead now.
And if we don't see anything wrong then we don't deserve Parliamentary democracy.

View more

Bloody Michael Moore, last of the properly working class documentarians.

---

Ppl are making the mistake of saying now what I was saying a year ago, that the left needs to reach out to the disenfranchised, white former middle class. This seems sort of legit - & after all, I was one of the ppl saying it, so how am I going to say it's a bad idea now - & might offer an explanation for what's going on which isn't "America fucked up its own politics so now it's in a steady decline toward inevitable failure, strap in."

---

Unfortunately instead I'm gonna say it's a bad idea anyway. These folks had the option to vote for Sanders, they were presented w/ a radical socialist solution to their problems, but they insisted the state is bad & useless then happily took Trump up on his offer to let the state take care of everything. A 35% tariff on non-American made cars? Fantastic, you can all go back to the factory & make cars for minimum wage. Your saviour has arrived.

---

If we start trying to match Trump in terms of blustery non-solutions to industrial reform & employment & taxation & social security - we'll just make Mexico's economy pay for it directly, if we can't actually compete w/ them in a free market! - we're playing the same rigged game that saw liberalism piss away all the historical momentum left-wing politics had last century. These mouth-breathing middle class folk - racist or not, polite or not, however Real their America - chose a side, & it's not our side. It's their own side, & they happily signed on w/ the same folks that ruined their lives already, because they can't tell the difference.

---

America's a capitalist country, & we can blame the left for not appealing properly to these elements of society, but w/in a capitalist framework you need money to spread any powerful messages. What do we have? We have the internet, but there ain't no rich leftists in a capitalist nation. Plenty of leftists, sure, but none of them have the money to, say, start their own equivalent of Fox News that produces violently pro-socialist propaganda 24/7. Then give that propaganda away for free.

---

I can't compete w/ that, & neither could any of the other broke-ass left-leaning folks. Even the guys w/ some kind of platform, like Michael Moore. I watched his ass in the 2000s, trying to do something about gun control, & climate change, & whatever else. Trying to present it to his ppl in a way they'd understand & appreciate. NRA took him to the fucking cleaners, now America has mass shootings multiple times per week.

---

These folks aren't my allies, & if they come to the "metropolis" w/ pitchforks & torches looking to score some revenge for the urban-centric economic planning western nations have been using at the expense of rural communities, then so be it. Maybe Trump or someone like him will let that happen, maybe I'm on the wrong side of history. No way I'm letting a horde of racists, whatever the reasons for their gripes, lay so much as a finger on my Muslim neighbours tho.

View more

Revolution. Disorder. Rapid changes that turn strengths to weaknesses & weaknesses to strengths, overnight.

---

I don't mean violence, either. That's historically a pretty inevitable side effect of this sort of change, but that's not what interests me. I like seeing the secure & comfortable ppl suddenly having to think on their feet, watching them develop neural pathways in atrophied parts of their brain, in the space of a few heartbeats. I like seeing ppl that've been running & scared their entire life take their first breath of freedom, that moment they 1st accept nothing is chasing them anymore. The moments where dynamics that've stood for so long they just seem like reality suddenly stop mattering, & everyone present processing this information. All the rules are different & you only have a few seconds to reconfigure e v e r y t h i n g.

---

That's my shit. When a cop calls for backup & there's no one on the radio, when someone pulls a trigger & it goes click, when a boy realises he's stronger than his heavy-handed parent, when a girl realises she can throw a punch as well as any boy, when you get away w/ stealing something you really shouldn't have, when a bunch of folks you thought were your enemies suddenly come to your rescue. When the rules you didn't ever think to question, change.

---

Anything can happen in those times, & ppl can change drastically forever. They can also just die, which happens a lot during those moments too. There's reasons we don't shake up fundamental things on a large scale just for funsies, & I respect those reasons, but some ppl are just born to come to life when shit goes crazy, & unfortunately I am one of those ppl.

---

This isn't what makes me so resentful of cops & civil society & authority in general, tho. My reasons for that shit is political, but it does make me less-inclined to see the good things these institutions can offer; I'm just not very afraid of the consequences of losing them. I don't think a disturbed & unregulated world is a "fun" one, or even exciting, it just...makes my eyes light up, which is why I answer this question this way. If you ask a taxation enthusiast if the entire world should be about the arcana of tax law they would probably say no, & I would probably say no to a world of complete chaos. They could also probably acknowledge why most ppl find taxes boring & difficult, & I I can see why ppl find disorder unpleasant.

---

Nevertheless, some folk light up at the idea of taxes, & I light up at the idea of systems of power being upended. You could uncharitably describe this as "wanting to watch the world burn," but my nihilistic tendencies don't make me light up. That shit's closer to the person being chased I mentioned earlier - a world on fire means freedom. Chaos doesn't mean that, it just means change. It means there's no answers, & everything I've ever learned now means completely different things.

---

If there was a button that could set that shit off I'd press it in a heartbeat.

View more

"You can choose not to use a toll road"
Not really. The road outside your house is likely to be a necessity. So is the road outside your place of work.

---

In most cases when companies and property owners own roads, it's likely that they won't just own one road, but all the roads in one area. You can't just choose between "turning left to use RoadSmart™ or turn right to use TarmacFriend©"
That kind of choice would be insanely rare at best and it's unlikely either company's roads will be entirely different, meaning the choice is pretty much an illusion.

---

This is the thing with you ancaps. You claim privatisation increases choice, but really in most cases necessities aren't things you get the option to choose, especially if you're on a budget.
If you need to travel a significant distance, you will need to travel, most of the time, on certain roads.
You are only asking for the choice of insanely rich people who have fucking helicopters to not pay for roads.

---

This is the thing about anarcho-capitalism. You don't want actual choice for all people. You want an illusion of choice that fucks over poor people and just benefits the rich, MORE DISPROPORTIONATELY than the world already does.
This is why ancaps are almost always middle-class or upper. It's because they're not the ones who will be stepped on by the shit system they create. It's the same way marxists and socialists are always somewhat wealthy too.

View more

It's difficult to draw a legally defensible line on where "fast food" worthy of targeting for vice-style taxation starts. is Domino's fast food but Crust not? is McDonalds fast food but not Rockpool Bar & Grill (precursor to the Burger Project)? These are subjective quality distinctions, but also have clear differences in price range and thus class consumption, but they are all fast food.

---

My preference is for increasingly onerous regulations on the vendor, not the consumer. For example I think New York former tyrant-mayor Michael Bloomberg was onto something when he attempted to ban "big gulp" drinks, basically mini-buckets of soda available from service stations etc. Bloomberg's attempt was struck down by this very same issue of demarcation (as well as a separation of powers argument that such a ban should have been handled by the state legislature rather than the city).
Nevertheless, tracking container inflation over the years and across markets is a harrowing window into the thoughtless, blind evolutionary drift of markets. Psychologically we are strongly amenable to the suggestion that "we are satisfied" when the serving is complete. By constraining the size of servings available, we aren't left to wonder "but could I be more satisfied, if I had more?" to such damaging degrees. If people want to buy multiple servings at that point, that's their prerogative, but they will be less able to ignore that their consumption is higher than recommended.

---

further reading: http://m.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-sodas-mcdonalds-big-gulp-chart

---

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96T0UT20130730

View more

Thanks! Just take your time. Aku juga baru benar-benar tahu aku mau berkarier di bidang apa itu pas umur 25 kok. Aku harus kerja di tempat-tempat yang berbeda dulu, ketemu orang yang macam-macam, baru aku benar-benar tahu aku suka dan nggak suka sama apa. Bahkan sekarang pun interest aku juga masih bisa berubah.

---

Kemudian, entertainment law itu memang tidak ada di Indonesia. Aku udah riset, dan entertainment law hanya diakui sebagai bidang hukum secara akademis di Amerika Serikat. Untuk Indonesia, kita sudah punya seperangkat hukum yang bisa diterapkan dalam 'entertainment law Indonesia', at least bentuknya serupa. Cuma ya tidak dalam rangkaian entertainment law sebagai satu subjek hukum sendiri.

---

Sebagai contoh isinya apa aja, ini beberapa mata kuliah dalam kurikulum LLM Entertainment Law di UCLA https://law.ucla.edu/academics/degrees-and-specializations/specializations/entertainment-media-and-intellectual-property-law-program/llm-curriculum/
- Copyright Law
- Intellectual Property
- Entertainment Law
- Law of Advertising & the 1st Amendment
- Television Law
- Trademark Law
- Music Industry Law
- Patent Law
- Sports and the Law
- Motion Picture Distribution
- Motion Picture Financing
- Income Taxation of Entertainers, Athletes, and Artists
- Telecommunications Regulation
- News Media Law in the Digital Age

---

MENARIK BANGET YA. GUE NGILER PENGEN SEKOLAH DI SINI.

---

By the way, adalah loh satu fakultas hukum di Indonesia yang mengajar Hukum Hiburan & Olahraga, meskipun sifatnya mata kuliah pilihan. Mata kuliahnya ada di Unpar. :D

View more

[Part 2 of 2, voting & democracy]

---

So what would this alternative I'm dreaming of, the 'backwards' candidate-selection model, look like?

---

Part of how the voting public is expected to stay engaged with the running of our country is by comprehending the nation's challenges as a set of 'issues'. We are neither expected nor asked to wrap our heads around the minutia of everything our country is doing, but instead we are aware that our nation has several domains of functioning, each of which can be approached in a number of different ways by the apparatus of the government, and many of which are presently working through some overarching 'issue' of major consequence. While far from perfect, this is not at all a bad division of labour between the people, the media, and the government, with most of us at least FEELING like we know enough about each major issue to hold a defensible opinion about it. This loose knowledge is what we are asked to draw on when we vote, so how can we use it differently?

---

Let's, for convenience, imagine these domains are split up the way real governments tend to arrange their cabinets (e.g. Health, Education, Defence), and there are ~20 of these. Now have each political party make their broad proposal for what they think the government's approach/plan-of-action should be for each of these pre-defined domains (collapsing together the many near-identical proposals from different parties). BUT, which suggestions belong to which party is concealed from the public. Instead, when you vote, you are presented with these 20-ish domains, and the list of options for each (some may have 3 or 4 proposals, others more than 10, life is complicated), and you simply indicate what you think should be done on each.

---

So who wins? No party can form a government without agreeing to adopt the full suite of policy preferences that have won the popular vote, but the party whose secret INITIAL proposal was CLOSEST to what the public decided, is the winner! Add in a proviso that a party cannot enter subsequent elections if they didn't pursue the policies they promised to, and you're gold! The will of the people reigns supreme, & the quality of statesmanship is now decided by who can best measure & influence the national understanding PRIOR to obtaining office. I think it could work.

---

I would even go one step further, in terms of ensuring the people shape a balanced set of policies. Stage 1 of voting is declaring what taxation scheme you think the government should employ, the more intensive options giving you '+' credits to allocate, the leanest giving you '-' cuts to allocate. Then, when you vote on the 20-ish domains of statesmanship, you also number them in order of importance from 1 to 20-something, adding the number of +s &-s corresponding to your chosen revenue scheme indicating expanded investment or punishing cuts. Judge winning parties most by issues highly valued by the public, cut them some slack on others.

---

That's how I'd redesign voting.

View more

On chante dans les rangs des camarades son grand retour. Lui qui avait coupé avec la politique, à l'instar d'un Nicolas Sarkozy, il était parti en retraite, et en a profité pour mûrir, changer. Avant de revenir brutalement dans cette atmosphère où il n'y a plus de grand leader de gauche et où le Parti Socialiste, le principal parti de cette famille politique, traverse une crise d'importance avec un président discrédité mais qui s'accroche au pouvoir, croit en sa réélection et veut tout faire pour y aller en 2017. En s'arrangeant pour que le PS soit aux mains de ses fidèles comme les Cambadélis, homme de petite envergure et hollandiste fervent. Sur fond de débâcle idéologique : qu'est-ce qu'être de gauche aujourd'hui ? A cette question qui vaut un million, personne n'a vraiment la réponse.

---

Les Frondeurs et l'aile gauche, manquent sérieusement de figure médiatique et d'échos dans l'opinion publique. Martine Aubry qui aurait pu être leur voix a refusé de les soutenir dans leur motion de censure. Sitôt ses critiques émises, elle est retournée dans l'ombre. Elle ne veut pas incarner la source de division d'un Parti Socialiste qui malgré ses lignes politiques de plus en plus antagonistes veut maintenir une fiction d'unité.

---

Donc Montebourg apparaît être un substitut comme un autre. Il est éloquent, partage leurs positions social-dirigiste qui sont également celles du Front de Gauche, à savoir une politique étatique davantage interventionniste, une taxation accrue des hauts revenus pour continuer à financer le système sans le modifier. Avec derrière des projets vagues de 6 ème République qui essaient de donner une cohérence idéologique, lorsque justement il manque des idées.

---

Toutefois beaucoup lui reprochent d'une part sa condescendance, c'était quelque chose qui me frappait chez les Jeunes Socialistes et militants socialistes : Montebourg était perçu comme un aristocrate jouant au prolétaire "mon père était boucher-charcutier" se plaisait-il à répéter pour les amadouer. Le personnage a une haute idée de sa personne, et comme un Mélenchon, il a tendance à se croire pour le messie de la gauche alors qu'il ne fait pas l'unanimité, et qu'il clive plus qu'il ne rassemble.

---

Dans les cadres on critique également son opportunisme : le fait de s'en aller en critiquant tous les dinosaures du PS, puis de revenir comme une fleur en faisant de nouveau ami-ami avec tout le monde. D'être aujourd'hui une critique ardente du gouvernement, alors qu'il avait accepté d'être sous Ayrault ministre du Redressement Productif (un ministère aux contours incertains qui était un ministère de l'Industrie en rivalité avec le ministère du Travail et de l'Economie).

---

Si Martine Aubry devait sortir de sa réserve, Montebourg disait qu'il la suivrait. Normalement il doit annoncer à la rentrée ses intentions, ce serait étonnant qu'il se présente en 2017 contre Hollande, car il n'aurait pas le parrainage officiel du PS, et donc tous les financements, le réseau de notabilités associés.

View more

This question starts out fair and then kind of veers off.

---

Obviously, the question of what an ethical economic (note that I said economic, not political, capitalism is economic first and political second (although it is obviously tremendously so) system would even look like and how it can be achieved is an important one, if not THE important one. The simplest answer is, as a political actor and an active consumer, to prioritise supporting modes of production that aren't ridiculously unfair to people in other parts of the world.

---

My example is that Sweden is a country with a pretty good healthcare system but a lot of the largest companies founded in Sweden, H&M for example, are profitable because a lot of their work operates out of places that don't have nearly the sort of human rights or wage laws. So you have the almost unavoidable observation that Sweden is a successful country partially because it's held up by the work in India that makes the profits that pay the taxes that keep everything there nice.

---

Then you make the claim that any system will inevitably be exploited, which is what I would clinically call Bullshit. Not because it is not accurate, I agree with you 100% that there is no perfect or inexploitable system, but because it's a non-point designed to misdirect the discussion. Systems can be made HARDER to exploit. Some systems are harder to exploit than others by design, or render the danger of subversion less massive, or easier to catch, or make the effects less damaging. The claim that There Is No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism can be read as A: A rejection of the capitalism itself, or B: A simple observation that we have to recognise and at least improve if we ultimately stick with capitalism or are for the moment stuck with it, which we are. I am asking 'how do I make our current system better?' The response to this question is not 'no system is perfect!!!!'

---

Finally you ask of countries that have Socialism. I can think of a few where it worked very well. For example, Sweden, the country I brought up earlier, but also the United Kingdom and many others, are places where using taxation to fund services such as healthcare and roads and education have caused life expectancy and standards of living to improve massively. Although note that lots of doctors come from Cuba, where it's even easier to train to be a doctor - again making my point that our countries are 'held up' by states providing services we need to function, but seemingly cannot provide on our own. Cuba doesn't seem like a great place to live - and yet we need it that way.

---

But you don't seem to care about that - you ask that question because you want to invoke the USSR or China. I happily volunteer that those states are horrifying mega-catastrophes far worse than capitalism and I would pick Modern Western Capitalism every time over them. But it is not an either/or comparison. I am not advocating fucking Stalinism. I am advocating that we make things better.

View more

...no? They ARE required to register as charities in order to operate...charitably in Australia, but I guess the implication here is they have to *exclusively* be that, as in account for every dime they receive in terms of "charitable outcomes"?

---

The reason for insisting upon this is pretty obvious: it renders religious organisation & the communal rigmarole associated with it a consumer product, no different from a car wash or blow job. You want tax breaks, you gotta scrape these Unfortunates our society failed off the pavements & put em someplace out of sight. Society will pay you for that. You want faith, spirituality? You wanna believe something not scientific? Fuck that, get outta here, that's not helping. That's a SERVICE.

---

I'm totally in favour of revoking the recognised charity status of orgs that, for example, refuse to assist homosexuals. That's not charity, that's social engineering, & yeah fuck that my taxes aren't paying for that shit. Same with Scientology's nonsense. That's not the same as insisting they "document the good they're doing;" they're deliberately causing harm & justifying it by packaging it with some "good" also. Same way it's not OK for a surgeon to save ten lives then kill somebody for sport. This is problematic but I'll come back to it later, there's something MORE problematic I want to address first.

---

Here's the gross part imo: I'm not especially fussed about these religions preaching homophobia. That's mean, but religions aren't generally liberal movements. They got stupid rules & junk, & while my heart genuinely aches for ppl raised in these environments & end up being ostracised from them for being gay, I'm still technically a liberal. I don't FORCE organisations out of town for not welcoming everyone - ie, for not being liberals. I don't suddenly decide your religion isn't legit & tax it out of existence. My GOVERNMENT is a completely different story. The homophobia of my government apparatus is shameful & they all deserve to be herded into the sea as an example, but you can't be all "free religion!" then tell the religions what they're allowed to believe & who they have to accept.

---

All that said, how does that position me to resist, coherently, orgs like Scientology or Anonymous? It doesn't lmao. Scientology is effective because it exploits liberalism. You have to either bend the rules, which is incoherent, or change them, which is illiberal - which is also why atheists are fascists, but that's a whole other answer. So would I criminalise Scientology? I'd sure as shit try, but it'd have to be via their practices, not their dogma, & even that's slippery.

---

If one was right-wing they could point out this weakness in liberal doctrine, but tbh I could just wordlessly hold up a picture of Donald Trump. Every ideology has its weaknesses, but I'll take "exploitative gold-hoarding megachurches" over "capitalist irony-Hitler" every time, thanks.

View more

When I was a staunch atheist, I still didn't really understand the urge to tax religious institutions wholesale. It's super-easy to justify looking at shit like Scientology or the Hillsong prosperity gospel psychos, but even the Catholics, like...is it because they have a lot of gold trimming & hats & stuff? You know "having gold" isn't the sign of wealth it was back, say, when the Catholic church was a seriously powerful political entity? Stockpiling gold isn't the kind of money-spinner it used to be pre-capitalism.

---

Taxation doesn't harm entities like Google or Apple, in fact post-Panama Papers it seems apparent they just don't bother to pay them. Catholics make their money from donations, & I assume rent on their numerous properties they must own in some pretty sweet locations. Good for them imo, that's the benefit of being one of the planet's oldest remaining institutions - you can buy up some good spots back when they were cheap.

---

In return for this, they spread their ideology around, which a brief listen to Pope Francis will tell you is one of the few bastions of semi-serious anti-capitalism. Old school religions genuinely have non-material motivations, they don't WANT to get rich. They gotta have SOMETHING in order to operate, but they spend most of their operating cash on doing useful public works. Yes, human Catholics like George Pell are corrupt in the most truly appalling ways, but are we using capitalism as a bludgeon against criminals now? Is this how we punish the corruption of pretty-ok organisations, by subjecting them to the same cruel economic forces they at least make SOME effort to resist?

---

imo we'd be better off giving them a free ticket to enact their own medieval justice; burn the fucking pederasts at the stake. That'd be far more effective, from my twisted perspective, than subjecting them to aggressive taxation which would either destroy their institution or worse, force them to behave like Scientology & milk the vulnerable for cash to continue operating. The FIRST thing to go would be the first thing that always goes: taking care of the needy. Scientology doesn't care about the needy, it feeds off them, because its capitalist. Christians, ideally, heed a higher calling than material wealth & it's only an accident of history - tax exemption, a remnant of a time when they had more political clout than they do now - that they're able to even attempt to continue to pursue that calling in any capacity at all. Science can barely hold its shit together in the face of late capitalism, Christianity wouldn't last a year.

---

This is without even considering the little guys. Hare Krishna? Obliterated immediately. Buddhists? Where are those guys going to get enough money to do anything noteworthy? New religious movements that aren't thinly-disguised corporations? Forget about it, permanently. It's a terrible notion, UNLESS your goal is to enforce secular capitalism. Doesn't seem like a good goal to have tbh.

View more

The most immediate & sweeping change I would make is drastically increasing income tax on the rich, which would gradually be rolled back over the course of my lifetime position as Arch-Chancellor. The effect on Australia's large businesses would be immediate & drastic, heralding the flight of numerous international corporations. Trade would also suffer dramatically as a result, I should think. The availability of luxury consumer goods would plummet. Foreign investment would sink like a stone. The value of the Australian Dollar would plummet. The Australian middle class would suddenly become very wealthy & have very little to invest their wealth into. Massive redistributive measures would need to be undertaken to prevent shortages of basic goods.

---

Then, gradually, people would start to invest their money in local businesses, because there would suddenly be limited alternative options. People would flee urban centres, as the sudden spike in unemployment would be countered with large-scale rural infrastructure projects, mostly concerned with internet access & green energy.

---

Opportunities in agriculture would be plentiful in the wake of large companies like Woolworths having their profits crippled by tax increases. Land would be purchased wholesale by my administration & resold to citizens at a pittance. Corruption would be rampant, creating further employment opportunities for government bureaucrats charged with overseeing operations, & further bureaucrats to prevent corruption among THOSE bureaucrats.

---

Prisons left empty by large-scale amnesties for drug convictions would rapidly fill with former public servants found to be accepting bribes or embezzling public funds for personal use. Bloody executions will be performed to show the seriousness of my government's position on those who try to take advantage of the state's generosity. No gulags, though, no work camps. Australia remains a free country for those who follow the rules, but a time of large-scale restructuring can risk no malfeasance, no possibility of a culture of corruption being established. Better a tradition of government brutality than a corrupt public service.

---

The funniest tax I can think of is the "Tax Tax," a tax on taxes. This would create an infinitely recursive effect on all transactions, rendering every exchange an infinite downward spiral of increasingly fractional tax-&-counter-tax, that would completely exhaust the processing power of every calculating technology in the country within a matter of hours, as they struggle to calculate tiny taxations on amounts that are infinitesimal portions of a cent.

---

If you don't think breaking every accounting computer in the country is funny, then I don't know what to do with you, frankly.

View more

The leadership of a business has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to maximize the value of their ownership in the business. This is a matter of civil law and they can be sued for forsaking it. They are not called to protect the nation. They have no obligation to contribute to the greater good. Everything about there job, including their bonuses and incentives are set up to motivate them to do their job well.

---

Politicians are tasked with protecting the public good...but they are incentivized to do as little as possible while creating the illusion of positive motion. This is why politicians are known to be dishonest...because that is what they are motivated to be.

---

The media is motivated to increase consumption. It is not news (and therefore does not promote media consumption) that politicians are liars and shirkers. More drama (and thus more consumption) can be created by reporting on the dramatic actions taken by business leaders--whose roles are in general misunderstood.

---

Everyone only does what they are motivated to do...if businesses are motivated to act against the public interest, it is because the politicians, who hold public interest in trust, are failing to protect the public's interests. And if the blame is placed elsewhere, it is because, in general, the media is not motivated to hold those who are supposed to protect the public interest accountable when they fail to do so.

---

Keep in mind that the tax system raises revenue, but is also a tool used by legislators to motivate behaviors.

---

Some quick facts about taxation of businesses in the US:
* The corporate tax rate in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world.
* Corporate earnings are taxed twice: Corporations pay a high income tax rate and then pay dividends which cannot be deducted. Shareholders then pay income tax on the dividend income.
* Taxpayers must pay tax on the profits when they sell their equity position in a company. This works against business leadership because it essentially reduces the value of the stock when it is sold (and because of the progressive nature of tax, the more money you make, the more each dollar is taxed...so the more valuable the stock is when you sell it, the more its value is taxed--and this reduced--when it is sold.) This has the effect of slowing the market...less people sell...so less demand...so less perceived value.
* Recently a new tax was introduced to pay for Obamacare--the net investment income tax--which, you guessed it, taxes proceeds on investments.

---

The tax system is directly opposed to the responsibilities of business leadership...

---

So, who is to blame...

---

The problem lies with the government and the tax system, not the businesses...

---

Instead of asking, "how could Pfizer do that?", we should be asking "How could you clowns in the government forsake your duty and still sleep at night?"

View more