patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

tatupu70 says

I’d argue that it’s un-American to give up your citizenship to avoid paying your share of taxes.

Are you saying there would never be a valid reason to give up American citizenship?

I'm saying that you aren't much of an American if you are willing to swear allegiance to another country in order to deprive the USA of the tax revenue which is necessary to run our government that allows you to so freely amass such a fortune.

That's unAmerican and unpatriotic.

I won't cry a river if rich jerks surrender their citizenships to avoid paying taxes. I will be pissed if our government allows them to leave without paying for the privilege they enjoyed as American citizens that allowed them to become rich jerks in the first place.

And as you leave, don't let the door hit you where the sun don't shine on the way out. Good riddance to the unpatriotic Aristocrats who only want to benefit from our country without having to pay their fair share of the bills.

simchaland says

Good riddance to the unpatriotic Aristocrats who only want to benefit from our country without having to pay their fair share of the bills.

What % of their income would you consider their "fair share?"

Why should someone pay taxes, again, on the same money they earned (and paid taxes on) in the first place?? They already paid their "fair share".

Its unamerican to manipluate people in a free country with forced monetary controls. This is yet another example of an oppressive monetary tactic used by many other failed empires in history.

simchaland says

I’m saying that you aren’t much of an American if you are willing to swear allegiance to another country in order to deprive the USA of the tax revenue which is necessary to run our government that allows you to so freely amass such a fortune.

You are somehow not aware that everyone wealthy or not pays their taxes (fair share of the bills) every year? Perhaps the concept that if someone gives up their citizenship then they are no longer using any of the governments services a little too difficult to grasp? Hint, if someone is no longer a citizen then they don't have any obligation for fund what is now a foreign government.

Nomograph says

Nobody paid for the hospital they were born in, the schools they attended, etc.

Hospitals and schools are businesses that charge for their services. Since I used the private versions, my parents paid for the private bill on top of paying taxes for others to use the public version. My parents paid for these services for me (as well as many others less fortunate through taxes), just like I will pay for these services for my children. If I am blessed with wealth in life I will gladly help others to education and healthcare, though most likely they will be poor foreigners and not poor US citizens. There remains no outstanding debt, moral or otherwise.

Regardless, this is all besides the point. A government is given its authority by the citizens. If a free citizen disagrees with the actions of his government, he should be free to leave.

I am by no means rich. I would like to gain citizenship to another country and drop the US citizenship as political protest against our military imperialism, moreso than any other reason. Cutting off a government's tax power base one citizen at a time is the most effective protest, by far.

Nomograph says

Basically, you want people to mooch off the previous generation, then skip out when it’s payback time.

Are you arguing that a US citizen is morally indentured to the US government? How very progressive of you.

Regardless, your statement is not supported in fact. The US baby-boomer generation racked up a debt on the credit of future generations. It is the past and current generations that are mooching off future generations that is our big problem.

CBOEtrader says

Regardless, this is all besides the point. A government is given its authority by the citizens. If a free citizen disagrees with the actions of his government, he should be free to leave.

You are free to leave. No one will stop you. You just may have to pony up a little money if you are super rich...

tatupu70 says

Freedom to leave without paying any taxes, no. How is that a “liberty”

Rofl, too funny...

Nomograph says

CBOE wants to make his money as a US citizen, then abdicate. Why not grow a pair and give up your citizenship *before* you parasitically suck wealth out of the US economy? You are free to do so with very little tax implications.
You want to have your cake and eat it too, and the US government is having none of it.

Wow! You made up an entire story line in your head...all of it innacurate.

I am attempting to give up my citizenship as soon as I can gain citizenship to a reputable foreign country. These sort of things can take 5 years. This is a long term goal, not something that happens overnight. It is also something I am very mixed on. I love my country. It is our government that I have problems with.

I am 32 years old, and have not made any type of fortune yet, parasitically or otherwise. I do have some international business plans though, to which my US citizenship is a lot more of a liability than an asset. This has more to do with the regulatory burdens that the US places upon US citizens and US capital, than the capital gains or income tax rates.

bob2356 says

simchaland says

I’m saying that you aren’t much of an American if you are willing to swear allegiance to another country in order to deprive the USA of the tax revenue which is necessary to run our government that allows you to so freely amass such a fortune.

You are somehow not aware that everyone wealthy or not pays their taxes (fair share of the bills) every year? Perhaps the concept that if someone gives up their citizenship then they are no longer using any of the governments services a little too difficult to grasp? Hint, if someone is no longer a citizen then they don’t have any obligation for fund what is now a foreign government.

Actually I'm more aware of how the richest 1-10% use the immense loop-holes written into the tax code by other rich jerks so that they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes every year.

So what you are saying is that it's ethically just to use our country as a place to become stinking rich and then cut and run when confronted with the bill for services and privileges you received while becoming stinking rich?

I'd say that all of us as people who were born, raised, and who have benefited from our system of government, that we elect and that we place in power, have a duty to financially support that government in recompense for the benefits we have received from living in a place where we are mainly at peace, have opportunities to make money, and to have our basic human rights respected by that government (mostly, at least it was like that before the "Patriot Acts" put into effect by the Bush Regime). And we have a duty to financially support that government's continuance for generations of Americans who are growing up and who have yet to live.

If you don't want to live up to your duty then get out of our country and try to make your money somewhere else like China, India, or Western Europe. We don't need freeloading Aristocrats here.

Nomograph says

CBOEtrader says

Wow! You made up an entire story line in your head…

I believe CBOEtrader is also being investigated by the Options Exchange Committee, which is why he needs to flee the country. He is quite possibly all tied in with Enron, AIG, BP, and the whole subprime lending mess as well.

The disbarred, crazy, old, lying, army-rejected geezer is rambling on about some anger induced fantasy again. If anyone took you seriously, this would be considered slander.

Why are you still here? All you do is criticize, while adding nothing of value to the forum. You are a troll, that spends his free time attacking those that you feel are trolling patrick.net--which means you are also a hypocrite. Congratulations. You must be proud of yourself.

CBOE - I couldn't have said it better myself - well done !

simchaland says

Actually I’m more aware of how the richest 1-10% use the immense loop-holes written into the tax code by other rich jerks so that they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes every year.

So what you are saying is that it’s ethically just to use our country as a place to become stinking rich and then cut and run when confronted with the bill for services and privileges you received while becoming stinking rich?

That's contradictory. If the stinking rich aren't paying taxes now how will they be paying in the future? Better they left so they aren't using any services they aren't paying for and didn't pay taxes somewhere else. Why do you feel that people somehow owe taxes in the future for services they are using right now? What about services you will be using in the future? Do you pay them further in the future? Then further, then further. The taxes you pay right now are for what you are using right now. Explain what services and privileges people use to get stinking rich that the didn't pay taxes for?

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

CBOE - I couldn’t have said it better myself - well done !

That doesn’t surprise me; I have long suspected that Honest Abe and CBOEtrader were both involved in the conspiracy. Eventually traitors always reveal themselves.
Luckily, the FBI is probably monitoring this forum.

Your grasp on reality is slipping, but its still good to see an old man entertain himself. Human interaction of any kind is important for octegenarians to keep the mind sharp.

'Ata boy blue!

Liberals are usually very good at argument and debate. They have to be - they are without the support of logic and common sense. Most rely of "feelings" and feel good policies. They seldom care to discuss the ugly, hurtful, harmful unintended consequences of their feel good policies and programs...oops.

yawn.

Can someone wake me up when anything intelligent is written here?

Nomograph, let's pick up elliemae and plot how we're going to grub up all the money and take over the world!

simchaland says

Nomograph, let’s pick up elliemae and plot how we’re going to grub up all the money and take over the world!

Did I fall?

If human beings have positive rights to food, clothes, jobs, education, health care, child care, abortion, a clean and safe environment, adequate social status, leisure time or any other good, service or condition, and if these entitlements are deemed enforcable, then people who don't have them are being negelected and deprived and are therefore victims of injustice.

Accordingly, a free society and a free country are profundly unjust because it zealously protects only the basic rights essential to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a peaceful and orderly environment.

Abe--

Do you think it's the government's job to worry about society in addition to individuals? Where does an individual's rights end when it affects others?

The Constitution of the United States - a charter for LIMITED government created the freest, most prosperous nation in human history. The ever-expanding bloated government now in Washington is indifferent, even hostile, to liberty and the free enterprise system.

Our national "leadership" (haha) is moving America rapidly in the direction of more and more big government bureaucratic despotism. Big, bloated, parasitic government is the negation of freedom. Wasn't FREEDOM one of the cornerstones in the founding of our Nation?

Yes, yes, yes. You've written your opinions on our government many times. How about answering a question and thinking outside your regular talking points?

How about this? What would it take for someone on the "right" to go to the darkside? AND what would it take for someone from the radical left to move over to the opposite side?

I suppose that when the governments burden becomes too great, there are some rightwingers that might throw in the towel, quit working so many hours, say "Why bother killing myself", and look for a way to get on the government"gravy-train".

I guess a liberal who might have become very successful at something, and the rewards of his efforts pay off in a really big way, might say "Wait a minute - I'm the one who invented this product, I'm the one who's been working 7 days a week for the past 6 years. I'm the one who has been working 12 hours a day. I'm the one who mortgaged my house to the limit to get this product off the ground. I'm the one who has all the risk. And now that I'm finally seeing the fruits of my labor I must now share 50%, or more, with Uncle Sam so he can hand it out to others??? I suppose at that point some lefties might begin to see the virtues of the other side.

BTW - my 50%, or more, comes from the addition of the following taxes (some we pay directly, others we pay indirectly...hidden through higher costs): Federal tax, State tax , Sales tax , Gasoline tax - Federal, Gasoline tax - State, DMV "fees" (aka tax), Property tax, Tobacco tax, Death tax, License fees (aka tax), Capital gains tax, Alcohol tax, Dog license fees (tax) Unemployment tax, Inheritance tax, Food tax, Gas guzzler tax, Gift tax, Luxury tax, Marriage license fee (tax), Medicare tax, Real Estate transfer tax, Recreational vehicle tax, Business tax, Tenant occupancy tax, Transient occupancy tax, Parking occupancy tax, City tax, Social Security tax, Telephone Federal Excise fee (tax), Workers compensation tax, Watercraft registration fee (tax), State telephone tax, Local telephone tax, Trailer registration fee (tax), Utility tax, Hazardous disposal fee (tax), Transportation tax, Storm water runoff fee (tax), Hotel room tax, Cell phone tax, and the most insidious of all...the hidden tax - inflation. And I'm quite sure I missed a lot of other taxes we are all subject to.

And again--you didn't answer my question. What responsibility does a government have to ensure that an individual's rights don't infringe on his fellow man or society as a whole?

For example--you mention the gas guzzler tax in your last post. Do you think it's a good idea to artificially raise the cost of gas to incentivize/subsidize industry to find other energy sources?

To answer your first question: A truly limited government can mean only one thing: enforcing the non-aggression principal, known to our founders as "the law of nature". Since government is a public servant, and is the societal use of force, it's limits should be the same as the use of force by individuals. An individual may use force in the defense of aggression, he may not initiate force.

For example, by forcing some people to pay for the health care services of others and by forcing everyone to purchase health care insurance regardless of their consent, government exceeds the natural limits of its power. It initiates force and thereby commits aggression against every individual in society.

And as far as your second question - absolutely not. How would you justify the increase in cost of gas to the hundreds of millions of Americans who are barely eeking out a meager existence? Why should they be penalized? Natural laws of business will accommodate the discovery and use of other energy sources. Laws such as Supply and demand, the profit motive, and others will allow discoveries of all kinds to be made and utilized...without the use of force, and an artificially forced increase in the cost of gas.

In a truly free country, the government would not force and manipulate people by the tax code, or with "incentives" or subsidies to get its way. Our government is supposed to be a public servant, not a manipulator, and certainly not a wealth redistribution agency.

Honest Abe says

An individual may use force in the defense of aggression, he may not initiate force.

Tat is trying to test your reasoning skills with a tough question.

I believe Tat is asking what you think the government's role should be regarding issues like polution--where the marginal utility to the creator of the pollution far outweighs his marginal cost. The marginal cost of pollution is spread out amongst other members of society whereas the marginal benefit goes to the factory owner. Should the government force the full cost to society of externalities on the creator of the pollution? Isn't pollution from a nearby factory an infringement of your private property rights, if you own land next door? Should the government protect your private property rights, or should the government let the factory owner dump as much waste in the local drinking water as he likes, in the name of a free market?

thank you--you said it better than I

Yes, government should protect property rights. And why you are connecting the free market to pollution? The free market is simply a voluntary supply and demand interaction. One party wants something, the other party has it, and they agree to an exchange. Pollution is a tangential issue that is probably a violation of the law...which is not necessarily directly related to the free market.

I'm sure you will acknowledge that there are millions of daily transactions that comprise the free market that have nothing to do with pollution.

And shouldn't we all be concerned with the big picture? Rather than discussing minutia to "test my reasoning skills", the reasoning skills that are suspect are the reasoning skills pf our "public servants" in Washington DC - who are running our country into the ground. Free markets work and are self correcting, property rights work, capitalism works. It's not capitalism and sound money that is crushing America. Its the fault of too much government, too much intervention, too many entitlements, too much intervention, too much creeping socialism, too much paper money and too much dependency on the Nanny State...MOMMY !!

Honest Abe says

Free markets work and are self correcting,

But they really aren't self correcting in every case. That's the point of the discussion. You say pollution is against the law--why? Isn't that the Nanny State government telling me how to run my plant? Why can't I run my furnace how I want to run it to be as competitive as possible?

A free market certainly wouldn't have limits on how I can run my business. And it wouldn't be self correcting either. Someone who wants to buy my product in CA. wouldn't care if I'm polluting the air in Virginia.

tatupu70 says

And it wouldn’t be self correcting either.

free markets are one big race to the bottom. Those who can enclave themselves away from the sociological and ecological disaster are all for it. See China for 1.3 trillion people living this experiment of unregulated capitalism.

Also the tax-exile "Save our Homes" homesteads on the Florida panhandle like our friend Karl Denninger's. They are still militantly mouthing the "drill baby drill" mantra through gritted teeth as the tar mats coat their boats in the marina or dockside. That wasn't in the script, like a glitch in the Matrix.

Troy says

tatupu70 says

And it wouldn’t be self correcting either.

free markets are one big race to the bottom. Those who can enclave themselves away from the sociological and ecological disaster are all for it. See China for 1.3 trillion people living this experiment of unregulated capitalism.
Also the tax-exile “Save our Homes” homesteads on the Florida panhandle like our friend Karl Denninger’s. They are still militantly mouthing the “drill baby drill” mantra through gritted teeth as the tar mats coat their boats in the marina or dockside. That wasn’t in the script, like a glitch in the Matrix.

Not to quibble too much but I think you meant 1.3 billion people in China. The whole world doesn't contain 1.3 trillion people yet. Maybe you're confusing our national debt with global polulation. LOL

simchaland says

Maybe you’re confusing our national debt with global polulation. LOL

yup, waaaaay too much arguing on the internet for this kid

Some pollution is acceptable, for example your car. Gross pollution would not be acceptable, to anyone, and would be subject to the pollution law - whatever that is.

Of course we need government, and teachers and cops and roads, and airports. What we don't need is a cradle to grave Nanny State, so everyone can be happy. Competent adults don't need constant and excessive government micro-management, regulation and intrusion into every aspect of their personal and business life. Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it's taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven't noticed.

Honest Abe says

Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it’s taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven’t noticed.

believe me I have, which is why the current Republican party will NEVER get my vote for any national office. Well, I voted for Tom Campbell in 2000, and I hope he doesn't win the primary since my vote will again be drawn to him. If he were running against Feinstein again my vote for him would be a lock.

anyhoo, you're railing against a strawman version of socialism. I think the real-world versions of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Germany speak for themselves. Funny how you always avoid them in your rants.

Honest Abe says

Some pollution is acceptable, for example your car. Gross pollution would not be acceptable, to anyone, and would be subject to the pollution law - whatever that is.
Of course we need government, and teachers and cops and roads, and airports. What we don’t need is a cradle to grave Nanny State, so everyone can be happy. Competent adults don’t need constant and excessive government micro-management, regulation and intrusion into every aspect of their personal and business life. Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it’s taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven’t noticed.

OK Abe-we're starting to get somewhere. You relapsed back into your talking points at the end there though.

Do you agree then that free markets aren't always self correcting? That externalities exist and require government action to mediate?

No, I believe a truely free market will always self correct. The law of supply and demand works every time. Like when gasoline prices got too high, people responded by buying more fuel efficient cars, driving less, driving slower, filling their tires with more air. Demand dropped, prices came down. Notice the absence of government FORCE...people acted in their own best self interest.
The exact same thing happened in housing - which we are all aware of. Prices got too high, people stopped buying - prices came down. Notice the abesence of government FORCE...people acted in their own best self interest.

I can't think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you?

Honest Abe says

I can’t think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you

We just described one for you. Companies pollute the air in China or in Pennsylvania, but people in CA. don't care so they keep buying their products.

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

I can’t think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you?

Water, electricity, roads, schools, health care, forestry, mining, drilling, waste management, transportation, etc… These all will self-destruct or completely monopolize. There are many more.
Regulation doesn’t evolve because of “freedom haters” or other such nonsense. Regulation evolves in response to free market failure.

Indeed. Market fundamentalists operate as if the uneven and suboptimal latter half of the 19th century did not exist.

When Norway found oil on their continental shelf in the 1960s, the state set the exploitation up such that the bulk of the net proceeds ended up in their Pension Fund, which now amounts to $400B vested in 1% of global equity right now (well, $400B until the big haircut today). To avoid needless domestic inflation and unsustainable dependence on an relatively ephemeral income, they do not touch the principal, they only tap a portion of the interest returns for current expenses.

The history of oil exploration and exploitation here in the Land of the Free was a big mess, often literally. Anybody actually believes in the free market fairy has a screw loose with this sordid history staring them in the face, unless they fetishize winner-take-all competition and widespread commercial ruin and economic coercion.

The sweetheart giveaway of natural resources was one of the bigger mistakes made in our economic history; Russia made a similar mistake with the fall of the Soviet order and the subsequent mass selloff of previously unprivatized natural resources and associated capital investment.

Even today, current leases in the GOM are lucky to yield just 40% of net to the state, half the rate the Norwegians collect from their oil production.

Honest Abe won't talk about the Norwegian Eurosocialist example because AFAICT it utterly destroys everything he thinks he knows about economics. I could be wrong about Norway, having never been there, but from some cursory research their managed economy looks rather damn solid.

Here is what I found out about Norwegian Eurosocialist mentality: (1) They think capitalism is "evil and stupid" (2) The present Deputy Leader, Audun Lysbakken, is a "self proclaimed revolutionary, socialist and Marxist" and (3) there was an "earlier connection to communist organizations around Europe."

Well, that's enough for me to say NYET to Norwegian Euro-socialism. I'll take American opportunity, liberty and freedom over that any day.