my grandfather dug this up in his yard...

HaMMeRxxTiME · 2 days

Slow clap

spirit_llama · 3 days

That is a 95 Chrysler Sebring... my first car... you bastards.

brosenfeld · 3 days

Insurance policies are in the interest of everyone... but you don't have to promote their utilization.

brosenfeld · 4 days

Responsibilophobia

also known as "being an irresponsible ass hole"

brosenfeld · 4 days

~~wives~~

"baby's mamas"

brosenfeld · 4 days

How about people remain responsible for their own actions AND we not kill people?

I don't think it has to be one or the other.

enchantrem · 5 days

If he can do so safely, yes. It would be the exact same standard with which citizens (and law enforcement officers in similar situations) are expected to meet presently... a 'reasonable' level of force.

If, in your scenario, the man is wholesale executing individuals left and right, then others around the situation have the right, and the moral imperative to stop the man by necessary means (including ending his life by force). However, if the man is harming individuals and damaging property but is not an immediate threat to life, then less drastic measures can be taken.

Situations like what you're proposing are not terribly uncommon today, even outside of the hypothetical realm. Common law notions have been around for centuries, across institutions and governments - often with no centralized guiding or enforcing agent outside of the community at-large. A world without government is not a world without standards.

enchantrem · 5 days

Your view of 'perfect' is one that seems to actively involve itself in the minutiae of individuals' day-to-day lives... that viewpoint, however, overlooks that institutions of government are being run by human beings and the imperfect nature of humanity.

"It would be nice if..." does not always lead to a practical or even possible notion. If you had a microcosm of society with which to experiment, assuming your sample was a perfect representation of humanity at large, you could attempt to implement your various hypotheses in an attempt to create such a perfect government. However, considering that you are experimenting with actual people, and their lives - likewise considering that conclusive results may take generations to come to - you risk doing far more harm than good in your attempt to create the 'perfect' all-knowing, benevolent but domineering government.

Unfortunately, without that microcosm of society with which to experiment, we are forced to look to history for indications of what certain approaches lead to... and a domineering, even if attempting to be benevolent, government that attempts to involve itself in all aspects of human life to ensure some level of equality of outcome thus far has always resulted in bankruptcy at-best... large scale abuse and death at-worst.

enchantrem · 5 days

Is it really impossible for any government to plan for and/or react to these unintended consequences, just because our current government has been unable to?

Impossible? No. But no government thus far has ever been able to do it.

What you're saying sounds great, in theory. But in practice, history indicates that such expectations being applicable to forthcoming government action are highly improbable.

Effectively, it sounds like you're making the "sure we've failed every time in the past, but we just weren't doing it right" argument.

Hyperboloidof2sheets · 6 days

So true.

themotherklucker · 6 days

".... about...the things.... ?"

webibiz · 6 days

Userscripts, browser addons... however you do it there is little reason to ever see ads on facebook (or virtually anywhere else either)

TheResPublica · 6 days

I don't like what Mr. Sevarin is doing... but that doesn't mean that this proposed remedy (which would not directly affect this case from a tax collection point of view - ex post facto and all) is good policy.

Bad things happen. It's a poor decision on his part, but our country was not established or designed to micromanage affairs at this level.

JeromeTomorrow · 6 days

The problem that most climate change deniers have is that the economic impact that adopters will immediately feel will not be shared and will put them at a relative disadvantage

Some might say, "That's the point"

reply · 6 days

Well we seem to be at an impasse. You believe dividends should be taxed twice... which at least has an enforceable quality - but you're effectively proposing a World IRS, perhaps run by the United Nations?

Even without a centralized governing body... that's just a catastrophe waiting to happen. Good luck and we will see.

reply · 6 days

If they don't pay they shouldn't be able to conduct business in the US.

Once again - they are paying taxes - no one is claiming that they shouldn't be... that's what the corporate tax rate on corporate profits is. You seem to not understand what a share of stock is in relation to profits generated.

I'm sure they do a lot more complicated things than that.

Really? That's your response? "They're smart, figure it out" ...

If they can do that Congress can mandate that any company operating in the US provide the information.

What exactly do they do with the information? Send them a nasty letter at their home in Brazil? What's next, do we invade with marines when they are deemed to be delinquent?

Once again, what you are proposing indicates you do not have a firm grasp on the details - or are simply choosing to engage in ridiculousness for the sake of trying to make some ideological point. I do not disagree that people should be responsible and held accountable under the law... the problem in this situation is... you seem to miss the point that these people are already being taxed once and likewise that once someone leaves the jurisdiction of the United States, and is no longer a citizen, the U.S. Congress does not get to dictate law to them.

TheResPublica · 6 days

And? For $87 million I know a fair number of people who would gladly never set foot in the United States again.

I figured that was assumed as it seems unlikely he would ever be granted a Visa to enter after renouncing his citizenship in this manner.

reply · 6 days

Facebook is no longer an American company, they are based in Ireland. What you are proposing when you stated "make their money here" is just that... if a company has operations in any country, you are implying that those countries have a claim to tax shareholders.

You keep saying "easily" without actually addressing the valid constraints being put forth that do not make it easy.

How does the IRS collect on funds that are never in the United States to begin with? If a Russian shareholder buys a stock for GE, and then that stock goes up 20%, that shareholder sells their share (i.e. a 'capital gain') to another person from Brazil who wants it... how does the IRS tax that 20% increase that the Russian stockholder made? If someone who does not live in the United States, but has citizenship renounces that citizenship... how does the U.S. government retrieve the money you claim they are entitled to?

A different, but equally valid problem arises as noted before with dividends.

It seems you don't quite have a firm grasp on the issues that you're attempting to discuss.

TheResPublica · 6 days

He does in fact plan on renouncing his U.S. Citizenship entirely.

reply · 6 days

That is already tracked... and as I noted, corporate profits are already taxed once. Stock ownership is merely signifies how much of those profits that person is entitled to.

The problem remains, how does the IRS collect from someone in Russia? China? Brazil? Iran? (That is also not a U.S. Citizen). You likewise failed to address the:

Are you proposing that Mexico, Canada, Singapore, Great Britain, France, et. al. would be entitled to send you an income tax bill every year?

Stock changes hands outside of the scope of the company itself... they would have no control over such things to implement a fee upon that exchange. Perhaps in terms of dividends, but once again, those are merely the payouts of profits that have already been taxed. How do you reconcile taxing the same lump of money twice?

Your proposal is not as straightforward as you seem to think.

TheResPublica · 7 days

Agreed. Facebook's corporate profits are taxed - as a stakeholder in that company Mr. Saverin will be taxed by the U.S. government - but that is the extent to which he can be touched should he choose to give up his citizenship as he has so done.

This proposed law does nothing but encourage more to get out while they can.

TheResPublica · 7 days

i.e. the entities that still have ties to the country that our government actually has jurisdiction over?

Makes more sense.

reply · 7 days

Well... that helps.

So I assume you own a money market account / 401k / stock investment of some type. Well chances are, they operate, sell or manufacture to some degree outside of the United States. Are you proposing that Mexico, Canada, Singapore, Great Britain, France, et. al. would be entitled to send you an income tax bill every year?

Corporate profits are taxed. Your ownership stake in that company is therefore taxed at that time. Taxing it again - particularly when you are not a resident or citizen of that country when you sell or are paid dividends (i.e. your share of the already taxed profits) is an utterly unenforceable proposition.

TheResPublica

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login