Federal officials charge that the Swiss' famous secrecy is helping U.S. citizens skirt federal taxes.

My word. Who possibly has that much money that they need to avoid taxes by banking with the Swiss? Those patriotic rich people?

On an aside, the US constitution enshrines the rights of man, not the rights of US citizens.

Getting between the U.S. Government and tax revenue is like getting between Rosie O'Donnell and the buffet table. You just. Don't. Do it.

Skleenar:On an aside, the US constitution enshrines the rights of man, not the rights of US citizens.

granted, we're still one the lowest taxed states in the world... but we have some stupid taxes, too.

*taxed countries

Anybody know if Radley is still a farker? I'd like to add him to my favorites list.

"Apparently, U.S. law now applies everywhere in the world except Guantanamo Bay"

I'm pretty sure that was the POINT of Gitmo.

We Are the World... (new window)

I love Reason magazine. Which reminds me, I gotta renew my subscription.

"Apparently, U.S. law now applies everywhere in the world except Guantanamo Bay"

Well, Gitmo is American soil, and we know that most of our laws, except the ones they choose to enforce/obey, don't apply on American soil, so applying them everywhere but seems consistent to me.

Psh, nice 'article'.

Trolling headline...Check
Lack of substance...Check
Anything worth discussing?...Nope

Perfect for fark.

tgregory:granted, we're still one the lowest taxed states in the world... but we have some stupid taxes, too.

Son, you really need to learn the difference between marginal tax rate, and effective tax rate.

The effective tax rate, nevermind actual tax yield, of the top 5% of income-earners in the US, as well as large corporations, is pretty damned low.

The feds have moved beyond gambling to now pressuring Swiss bankers in Switzerland to break Swiss law in order to comply with U.S. law.

Ok.

Can't they say no?

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

GWShenlong05:tgregory:granted, we're still one the lowest taxed states in the world... but we have some stupid taxes, too.

Son, you really need to learn the difference between marginal tax rate, and effective tax rate.

The effective tax rate, nevermind actual tax yield, of the top 5% of income-earners in the US, as well as large corporations, is pretty damned low.

Umm... did you just condescendingly agree?

O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!

I'm gonna move to Gitmo and set me up a casino.

FreudulentSplit:Well, Gitmo is American soil, and we know that most of our laws, except the ones they choose to enforce/obey, don't apply on American soil, so applying them everywhere but seems consistent to me.

Actually that's a pretty accurate description of the last eight years.

coco ebert
Hell, you can tax 50 percent of my income if it means that I have free education, health care, and child care and that I don't have to support a huge military-industrial complex or corporate welfare system.
--------------

I'd take that anyday as well.

I've already brought up in other threads that tax rates don't really mean anything. A country only functions on the ability of its consumers (Ie, the middle class) to buy staff. If the middle-class can't buy stuff the economy falls apart. Which means everything is cheaper where taxes are higher. There's obviously other things to consider... but France has 50% tax rate and their quality of life is just as good as ours and their health care and eduction is 100% free. And they get 6 weeks paid vacation every year. Can't beat that with a stick!

coco ebert:Hell, you can tax 50 percent of my income if it means that I have free education, health care, and child care and that I don't have to support a huge military-industrial complex or corporate welfare system.

Why should child care be subsidized? They already have schooling, free lunches, etc. Parents chose to have children, but you want everyone to pay for the daytime care as well?

I'm for paying for schooling and even health care but there has to be a line when those who choose not to have kids get to stop paying for every little line item. Bearing children is a choice with consequences, can we please stop removing everyone's consequences?

jake3988:coco ebert
Hell, you can tax 50 percent of my income if it means that I have free education, health care, and child care and that I don't have to support a huge military-industrial complex or corporate welfare system.
--------------

I'd take that anyday as well.

I've already brought up in other threads that tax rates don't really mean anything. A country only functions on the ability of its consumers (Ie, the middle class) to buy staff. If the middle-class can't buy stuff the economy falls apart. Which means everything is cheaper where taxes are higher. There's obviously other things to consider... but France has 50% tax rate and their quality of life is just as good as ours and their health care and eduction is 100% free. And they get 6 weeks paid vacation every year. Can't beat that with a stick!

Health care and education is never "free" when it comes from everyone's taxes.

And to be fair, while the French have more vacation time, that also leads to a pretty poor work ethic. They strike all the time over there. Sometimes weekly, for virtually no reason at all. I remember one time I was in Paris the metro workers AND the taxi drivers were on strike so I couldn't travel long distances for a couple days.

But that's the French for ya. I love France, I love Paris, but they really are the negative nancies of Europe.

coco ebert:Hell, you can tax 50 percent of my income if it means that I have free education, health care, and child care...

If it costs 50% of your income, it wasn't free, was it?

Alternatively, let's take 100% of your income, you can have 'free' housing, food, and clothes. The State will provide you with luxuries like internet when it damn well feels like it, slave!

jake3988:
A country only functions on the ability of its consumers (Ie, the middle class) to buy staff. If the middle-class can't buy stuff the economy falls apart. Which means everything is cheaper where taxes are higher.

I would argue that a country functions on the strength of its social services. Social services are what allows the middle class to persist, otherwise everyone is one bit of bad luck away from being plunged into Dickensian poverty, no matter how much nice stuff they can currently buy. Social services allow the middle class to risk spending their money, rather than saving it against the possibility of a life disaster.

jake3988:Hell, you can tax 50 percent of my income if it means that I have free education, health care, and child care and that I don't have to support a huge military-industrial complex or corporate welfare system.

Today is July 8, the first day of the year Germans work for themselves instead of the government.

MyRandomName:Why should child care be subsidized? They already have schooling, free lunches, etc. Parents chose to have children, but you want everyone to pay for the daytime care as well?

I'm for paying for schooling and even health care but there has to be a line when those who choose not to have kids get to stop paying for every little line item. Bearing children is a choice with consequences, can we please stop removing everyone's consequences?

That's pretty much how a "country" works - the needs met are the needs of the mass, not the individual. Everyone has a long list of things they don't need/want that others in the society need/want, yet they all help foot the bill.

Sgian Dubh:MyRandomName:Why should child care be subsidized? They already have schooling, free lunches, etc. Parents chose to have children, but you want everyone to pay for the daytime care as well?

I'm for paying for schooling and even health care but there has to be a line when those who choose not to have kids get to stop paying for every little line item. Bearing children is a choice with consequences, can we please stop removing everyone's consequences?

That's pretty much how a "country" works - the needs met are the needs of the mass, not the individual. Everyone has a long list of things they don't need/want that others in the society need/want, yet they all help foot the bill.

No... That is how socialism works. Did you see any of this paying for child care over 100 years ago? Countries have functioned for thousands of years without being completely socialist. Look at history sometime, it's pretty interesting. You are basically quoting Marx.

coco ebert:long paragraphs

I would agree with you more if more people planned for children instead of just going for the "I want one now" route. Nannies of course are expensive, it's a full time job. Why anybody would plan to have a nanny who wasn't rich is beyond me. I would see grandparents as a more reasonable choice. In the case of not having that choice, some type of group care.

I do agree with your "2 hours lunchtime" at home being bad. That would not fly over in the states.

I'm just saying at what line do those who don't, or can't, have kids have to top funding those who have kids and can't afford them?

coco ebert:MyRandomName:

No... That is how socialism works. Did you see any of this paying for child care over 100 years ago? Countries have functioned for thousands of years without being completely socialist. Look at history sometime, it's pretty interesting. You are basically quoting Marx.

Yeah, and women pretty much only worked in the home 100 years ago. So what? Times change and societies change. The women's movement happened.

Oh, so since the movement happened we have to become socialists? I don't follow your logic. I still know plenty of single income families. Granted they aren't living extravagantly but they made a choice and stuck to it. They aren't asking for handouts. But I guess in today's age we should leave responsibility to the government, not to individuals.

globalwarmingpraiser:The effective taxrate of "corporations" is effectively 0%. They either add the taxes to their prices or take it from the dividends of their investors.

The effectivetaxrate of "individuals" is effectively 0%. They either account for taxation overhead when negotiating their employment compensation, or take it out of the allowances paid to their dependent children.

MyRandomName:Why should child care be subsidized? They already have schooling, free lunches, etc. Parents chose to have children, but you want everyone to pay for the daytime care as well?

Is it cheaper to subsidize daycare than to bear the societal costs of having children who are not taken care of? If so, then sign me up.

MyRandomName:Countries have functioned for thousands of years without being completely socialist.

Not really. Countries have only really existed for a few hundred years.

MyRandomName:Did you see any of this paying for child care over 100 years ago? Countries have functioned for thousands of years without being completely socialist.

Yet the "quality of life" for the average person has never in the history of civilization been as good as in industrialized countries in the past 100 years. Hmmm.

And to be fair, while the French have more vacation time, that also leads to a pretty poor work ethic.

They are the most productive workers in the world on an hourly basis. US Workers are the most productive overall, but that's because we work more hours.

"Oh crap. I shouldn't mentioned that he was a customer. Oh crap, I really shouldn't have mentioned he was a secret customer. Oh crap. I REALLY shouldn't have mentioned his illegal account.



It's too hot today."

MyRandomName:No... That is how socialism works. Did you see any of this paying for child care over 100 years ago? Countries have functioned for thousands of years without being completely socialist. Look at history sometime, it's pretty interesting. You are basically quoting Marx.

And you know what, you pretty much have had socialism for a long time now.

Way back when the community was the social construct. you knew everyone within 50 miles, because you all went to the same church on Sunday, all paid you tithes, helped Jethro raise his barn when it burned down, the church built the school that all the kids walked up hill 20 miles every day to get to, all shopped at the same general store, got treated by the same doctor, who would take payment in chickens and pigs, had MayDay celebrations that everyone pitched in to make happen. Blah, blah, blah.

The socialism was centered around the community, the community around the church. People helping people by paying 10% into a general fund that was used if someone fell on hard times, the park needed a new bench, etc.

Now? Churches use their general funds to build touchdown Jesus and big farking crosses, mega santuaries for their one service a week. NGO's have picked up some slack, but they'll never keep up. And if everyone falls on hard times at the same time, well, you're farked.

During the Great Depression, the churches could only help so much before they too were destitute, and when your income is based on 10% of nada, there isn't an income. Churches could only minister. Gov't had to step in a lot more to try to get things stimulated. Problem is, churches never really stepped back up, and gov't never stepped back. So now we have success theology, megachurches that do more to stimulate the founders than help the weak and poor, and a gov't left holding the bag. Even then, you can write off taxes by donating to your favorite charities, but even then they're hard pressed to keep up with demand.

So, scream, whine, biatch about socialism, but humans are social creatures, and even the most "rugged individual" of today depends on the social aspices provided by people who don't know you, don't care about you per se, and if they knew you were getting to use their roads, use their postal system, type email and browse web pages on their internets, things that their tax dollars subsidized. They'd be just as pissy about that as you are about socialism.

Me, I use the fire, police, county engineer, rec center, parks, schools, roads, city sewer, storm sewer, etc. to the fullest extent possible, and I'm informed as to where my local tax dollars go. It's all farking socialism.

Who can honestly say that one time or another they haven't imprisoned someone without recourse?

Shaggy_C:Psh, nice 'article'.

Trolling headline...Check
Lack of substance...Check
Anything worth discussing?...Nope

Perfect for fark.

The "article" was a post to the "Hit and Run" blog. It's a place for the Reason staff to quickly post summaries, links to other articles, info about the site, etc.

The post linked to 2 separate articles discussing the issue.

MyRandomName:Why anybody would plan to have a nanny who wasn't rich is beyond me. I would see grandparents as a more reasonable choice. In the case of not having that choice, some type of group care.

You know, companies that provide good childcare have more productive employees. It wouldn't be the first time business pushed something up the chain to the government, and users of the goods and services provided by a company subsidize this childcare.

I do agree with your "2 hours lunchtime" at home being bad. That would not fly over in the states.

Maybe. Depends on your employer in the states.

I'm just saying at what line do those who don't, or can't, have kids have to top funding those who have kids and can't afford them?

If you meant when do the people who don't do X have to stop funding people who do X, but can't afford it, then never. People who don't burn their houses down never get to stop funding those who do. And that goes for the govermental support (fire, police) and commercial (insurance, shared risk). There are a hundred examples of this.

Those kids that you're not having, you hate supporting with childcare, tax levies to fund schools, etc, are the engines of the economy you live in. Without childcare, education, and some upward mobility, they're the ones who torture your cat and tear up your lawn. With childcare, education and upward mobility, they're the ones fixing your lawn, getting you your meds and changing the diapers on your sorry ass when you're too old to make it to the facilities. The kids, they're as much a shared resource as the roads, police and fire dept. You can choose to live without them, and not deal with their whiny BS, avoid their teenage years, but without them, they're not supplementing your taxes (for those socialistic gov't provided things) nor sharing your risk (for those things like insurance) and they're not providing the economy of scale to bring the cost of goods and services down to where your fixed income retired rear can afford them.

And incentivizing higher fertility is stupid, whether it be for cash rewards, religious kudos, etc, but I think there's far less of that than the whiners think there is. Having 5 kids because you expect 3 of them to die in gang related violence, is much different from having another one for the supposed life of luxury that extra little bit on the dole can get you.