Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
You do it gradually over time... no crash.
But politicians won't because there are lobbies for every single tax loop. We've known the tax system needs to be fixed for decades, but we don't elect people who will do it. The politicians say what they need to say to get elected, and then in office they work for whatever corporate interests that fund their re-election campaigns.
I would love to see tax reform, but it isn't going to happen until we change campaign finance laws and until we have voters willing to accept change.
I'll spin this scenario out a little more. The future, as many foresee, is a network of devices. So everything you use will be collecting data and providing it to a central system. The idea that you can just avoid posting within Facebook or not using Google will be irrelevant if your car, your phone, your energy systems, your health care, your money, and the like are all feeding into a central data collection system. You would have to retreat from modern devices altogether to avoid being monitoring.
So we really need to have a bigger question about monitoring in general, how that info is being used, who has access to it, and so on. A private system, without any supervision or accountability whatsoever, can pretty much do what it wants with everything it gathers. Companies can pool data so that all details of your life can be centralized and analyzed.
My concern is the focus on government surveillance is being done by data collection companies to deflect scrutiny from what they are doing. It's like politics. "We'll tell the masses that the enemy is gay people or the poor so they don't pay attention to what we are doing."
If people only protest government gaining access to private info, then they have created a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
If it is okay for private companies to compile reams of info on people and then be able to turn around and sell it to whomever they want or to partner with and share the info with whomever they want, then all government has to do is to work with private companies.
The private/government distinction is arbitrary as long as one approves of whatever is done in the name of private enterprise.
If it is okay for private companies to have no restrictions whatsoever on monitoring people and collecting their data (and not being forced to openly disclose they are doing that and what they are doing with that data) then the private companies can be the de facto intelligence gathers for the world. Government is entirely unnecessary in the process. And, for that matter, countries can privatize their entire security operations if they want (that's what private security companies and mercenary armies are for). Eliminating government from these various operations does not mean the system becomes more pure. You can eliminate taxes to pay for government, but if you don't put any restrictions on what private companies do, then wealthy people can create privately run communities with their own guards, etc.
My assumption would be that whatever I do online can make its way back to the government. The idea that Google is somehow shielding me from the government doesn't make sense to me since I assume that Google is compiling its own file on me.
As Eric Schmidt implied, Google's job isn't to protect you.
Top 10: The Quotable Eric Schmidt - Digits - WSJ: "In a December 2009 interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, responding to questions about Google’s privacy policies: 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'"
Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Think about this.
In the old days, telephone companies connected people by phone, but could say that they didn't know what was in those calls. They did have records of which numbers placed calls to which numbers, but their business wasn't to eavesdrop on those conversations.
But with companies like Facebook and Google, they do eavesdrop and they go even further by actually selling the data within that content. Google knows what's in your email. It knows what you search for if you don't go out of your way to hide it. It keeps track of you via cellphone. Facebook these days knows not only what you do within its boundaries, but now, with some of the deals it has cut, what you do off-line, too. It knows how you use your credit cards, what you buy, etc.
Facebook, Google, and the like are invading our lives to a degree that so far beyond what the government does that I don't think you can limit your concerns to government. These companies are basically doing the government's job for it. Sure, we can complain about government actions, but I think the government will just switch more of its operations to private contractors and collect what it wants that way.
CIA Presentation On Big Data - Business Insider: "'You're already a walking sensor platform,' Hunt said, referring to all of the information captured by smartphones. 'You are aware of the fact that somebody can know where you are at all times because you carry a mobile device, even if that mobile device is turned off. You know this, I hope? Yes? Well, you should.'"
Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Everyone knows (or ought to know) that Google is collecting data. Given the law in question, how would anyone know that the government is doing so?
But people do point out that the government is collecting data.
Private companies boast to potential advertisers about all the info they have collected on users. If advertisers have access to that info, presumably government does too. If private companies are collecting data and selling data, whatever data they have presumably can be obtained by government, one way or another.
The fact that companies like Google collect data means the data is available. Maybe the companies shouldn't be saving it. Then there would be nothing to give to government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
A spy is an information gatherer that does their gathering in secret.
If Google is gathering information and we know that they are doing it and if the government is gathering information and we know that they are doing it, then presumably neither are spies.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Google is still not the spy. If I tell a friend something about me and I know that my friend tells info about me to anyone who will pay him, then he's not exactly a spy. Why is Google being a spy here?
What Google hasn't done, to everyone's satisfaction, is to be totally transparent about what it collects and what it does with that data. Whether you want to call that spying or something else, it is still a privacy issue.
I'll point you to this as just one example.
POWER-CURVE SOCIETY: The Future of Innovation, Opportunity and Social Equity in the Emerging Networked Economy | The Aspen Institute: "Shane Green of Personal said that when he talks to people at large Internet companies that gather lots of personal data, he is 'amazed' at their resistance to disclosing how they capture data, what they do with it and how much money they make from it. 'They sound just like Ma Bell from way back,' said [Michael Fertik, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Reputation.com]. 'They have absolutely no interest in talking about privacy. Why won’t [these companies] open up and talk about how they capture data and what they do with it? Because they’re controlling things in a way that benefit them and not everyone else.'”
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Well, I have tried to post this message three times already and it has been blocked. I'll try a fourth time without an active link.
Eliminating all government jobs, contracts, and transfer payments suddenly would crash the US economy and probably the world economy. I'm not advocating that (I believe good government is possible and desirable).
However, if that were to happen, there could be a sustainability benefit. Here's a website to ponder. (Hopefully my previous messages with the active link to this site will work.)
Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Here Google is trying to keep the government from getting the data that people gave to Google. That's not spying. That's being concerned with user privacy. People gave that data to Google for Google, not for the government.
Let's say Google treats government as a customer. Let's say Google will provide data to the government for a fee. And maybe the government (as a customer) says, "We are looking for people that fit this profile. Find them for us and we'll pay you quite well."
And let's say, so Google can avoid dealing directly with the government, the government hires a different company to collect that data from Google, and that intermediary provides it to the government.
As I read about government contractors, spying, and security, my sense is that private industry and the US government are so inter-related that it is hard separate them out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Hmm. I just posted a comment and a link to a legit website and my comment is being held for moderation. Such a bother, especially since I haven't done anything questionable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Let's say we dismantle government. No government jobs, no government contracts, no government transfer payments. The economy crashes. The US and probably the world economy stops growing and most likely contracts. Is that bad? Maybe not. I'm not advocating an end of government (I think it is possible and desirable to have good government), but if that would actually happen, here's the potential upside. I'll toss this website out for you to consider.
About Post Growth | Post Growth Institute: "For the last few decades the world economy has focused incessantly on growth: growth in national production, growth in profits, growth in a dizzying array of consumer items, growth in financial markets, growth in population. Across political parties and ideologies (capitalism, socialism, communism) many have come to accept the story that 'all economic growth is good'. This growth orientation has led to massive changes in terms of the relationship between humans and the earth and our relationships with each other. The growth story tells us that these changes are good, and that this is the way we will, and must, continue into the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
As for the comment that no one wants to cut spending--nonsense. We libertarians do.
No one who hopes to be elected. If you tell people what will disappear when government spending ends, they won't elect you. Ending all government spending, especially suddenly, would throw the economy in turmoil. That sort of tough love might actually be best for the long-term survival of the planet, but most people wouldn't go for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
I'll add if the goal is to cut taxes to put more money into the pockets of the wealthy and corporations on the assumption the economy will benefit, then the economy should already be booming because the wealthy are getting wealthier and corporations have lots of money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
In addition to individual tax rates, the corporate rate is also historically low, again more evidence that tax rates are not high. And yes, the tax rates as compared to other countries is important in showing that taxes are not high.
The big problem in this country is that people get stirred up about taxes, but no one wants to talk about the alternatives. If you want to cut taxes, you either cut the budget or you generate more debt.
If you cut the budget, the economy changes, no matter what you cut. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the government decided to suddenly eliminate taxes and also to end all government jobs, all government contracts, and all government transfer payments. The economy would collapse.
Now, from an environmental point of view, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If there is no money, there is no consumption. People forced to live within their means would be cutting back on everything, and maybe growing food in their backyards again (assuming they still had houses with backyards).
I tend to distrust the tax cutters because I believe once they got in control, they actually wouldn't cut taxes. They would just funnel money into the industries they wanted to support. And no one is willing to take the drastic cuts that would likely plunge the country into an economic crash. We already know that giving companies more money doesn't mean they increase capital investment or hire more people. They already have lots of money and aren't doing that. If there aren't customers, they sit on their cash. And if government spending ended, enough people would feel the effects that they wouldn't spend.
Why can't people be given the option? Why lobby against choice? If the government's forms end up ripping people off, then that will be a great selling point for TurboTax and people will use the service. But if people are happy just using a simple form, why lobby against that?
Basically people are saying here is one way to simplify things. And yet we have companies and politicians trying to get in the way of that. It does strike people as yet another example of a big company using its money to protect its turf.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Here's how loopholes work to the advantage of those who have the resources to take advantage of them.
G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether: "Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan 'Imagination at Work' fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
loopholes are good. anything to allow you to avoid taxes is good. this is one problem with tax "simplification".
Loopholes, for the most part, aren't good, because they reward some people and penalize others. People and companies end up making decisions based on tax loopholes. And people and companies with better accountants and better lawyers end up getting breaks that others don't get to take.
Tax loopholes reward some industries and penalize other industries, and that tends to reinforce the economic status quo.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
But politicians won't because there are lobbies for every single tax loop. We've known the tax system needs to be fixed for decades, but we don't elect people who will do it. The politicians say what they need to say to get elected, and then in office they work for whatever corporate interests that fund their re-election campaigns.
I would love to see tax reform, but it isn't going to happen until we change campaign finance laws and until we have voters willing to accept change.
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: To get you thinking about this
So we really need to have a bigger question about monitoring in general, how that info is being used, who has access to it, and so on. A private system, without any supervision or accountability whatsoever, can pretty much do what it wants with everything it gathers. Companies can pool data so that all details of your life can be centralized and analyzed.
My concern is the focus on government surveillance is being done by data collection companies to deflect scrutiny from what they are doing. It's like politics. "We'll tell the masses that the enemy is gay people or the poor so they don't pay attention to what we are doing."
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
To get you thinking about this
If it is okay for private companies to compile reams of info on people and then be able to turn around and sell it to whomever they want or to partner with and share the info with whomever they want, then all government has to do is to work with private companies.
The private/government distinction is arbitrary as long as one approves of whatever is done in the name of private enterprise.
If it is okay for private companies to have no restrictions whatsoever on monitoring people and collecting their data (and not being forced to openly disclose they are doing that and what they are doing with that data) then the private companies can be the de facto intelligence gathers for the world. Government is entirely unnecessary in the process. And, for that matter, countries can privatize their entire security operations if they want (that's what private security companies and mercenary armies are for). Eliminating government from these various operations does not mean the system becomes more pure. You can eliminate taxes to pay for government, but if you don't put any restrictions on what private companies do, then wealthy people can create privately run communities with their own guards, etc.
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Let me put it this way
As Eric Schmidt implied, Google's job isn't to protect you.
Top 10: The Quotable Eric Schmidt - Digits - WSJ: "In a December 2009 interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, responding to questions about Google’s privacy policies: 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'"
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
In the old days, telephone companies connected people by phone, but could say that they didn't know what was in those calls. They did have records of which numbers placed calls to which numbers, but their business wasn't to eavesdrop on those conversations.
But with companies like Facebook and Google, they do eavesdrop and they go even further by actually selling the data within that content. Google knows what's in your email. It knows what you search for if you don't go out of your way to hide it. It keeps track of you via cellphone. Facebook these days knows not only what you do within its boundaries, but now, with some of the deals it has cut, what you do off-line, too. It knows how you use your credit cards, what you buy, etc.
Facebook, Google, and the like are invading our lives to a degree that so far beyond what the government does that I don't think you can limit your concerns to government. These companies are basically doing the government's job for it. Sure, we can complain about government actions, but I think the government will just switch more of its operations to private contractors and collect what it wants that way.
CIA Presentation On Big Data - Business Insider: "'You're already a walking sensor platform,' Hunt said, referring to all of the information captured by smartphones. 'You are aware of the fact that somebody can know where you are at all times because you carry a mobile device, even if that mobile device is turned off. You know this, I hope? Yes? Well, you should.'"
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
But people do point out that the government is collecting data.
Private companies boast to potential advertisers about all the info they have collected on users. If advertisers have access to that info, presumably government does too. If private companies are collecting data and selling data, whatever data they have presumably can be obtained by government, one way or another.
The fact that companies like Google collect data means the data is available. Maybe the companies shouldn't be saving it. Then there would be nothing to give to government.
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
If Google is gathering information and we know that they are doing it and if the government is gathering information and we know that they are doing it, then presumably neither are spies.
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
What Google hasn't done, to everyone's satisfaction, is to be totally transparent about what it collects and what it does with that data. Whether you want to call that spying or something else, it is still a privacy issue.
I'll point you to this as just one example.
POWER-CURVE SOCIETY: The Future of Innovation, Opportunity and Social Equity in the Emerging Networked Economy | The Aspen Institute: "Shane Green of Personal said that when he talks to people at large Internet companies that gather lots of personal data, he is 'amazed' at their resistance to disclosing how they capture data, what they do with it and how much money they make from it. 'They sound just like Ma Bell from way back,' said [Michael Fertik, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Reputation.com]. 'They have absolutely no interest in talking about privacy. Why won’t [these companies] open up and talk about how they capture data and what they do with it? Because they’re controlling things in a way that benefit them and not everyone else.'”
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Eliminating all government jobs, contracts, and transfer payments suddenly would crash the US economy and probably the world economy. I'm not advocating that (I believe good government is possible and desirable).
However, if that were to happen, there could be a sustainability benefit. Here's a website to ponder. (Hopefully my previous messages with the active link to this site will work.)
Post Growth Institute
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Let's say Google treats government as a customer. Let's say Google will provide data to the government for a fee. And maybe the government (as a customer) says, "We are looking for people that fit this profile. Find them for us and we'll pay you quite well."
And let's say, so Google can avoid dealing directly with the government, the government hires a different company to collect that data from Google, and that intermediary provides it to the government.
As I read about government contractors, spying, and security, my sense is that private industry and the US government are so inter-related that it is hard separate them out.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
About Post Growth | Post Growth Institute: "For the last few decades the world economy has focused incessantly on growth: growth in national production, growth in profits, growth in a dizzying array of consumer items, growth in financial markets, growth in population. Across political parties and ideologies (capitalism, socialism, communism) many have come to accept the story that 'all economic growth is good'. This growth orientation has led to massive changes in terms of the relationship between humans and the earth and our relationships with each other. The growth story tells us that these changes are good, and that this is the way we will, and must, continue into the future.
"Yet, other perspectives are emerging. "
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
No one who hopes to be elected. If you tell people what will disappear when government spending ends, they won't elect you. Ending all government spending, especially suddenly, would throw the economy in turmoil. That sort of tough love might actually be best for the long-term survival of the planet, but most people wouldn't go for it.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Exploring Google's role
So Google wants the documents sealed.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
The big problem in this country is that people get stirred up about taxes, but no one wants to talk about the alternatives. If you want to cut taxes, you either cut the budget or you generate more debt.
If you cut the budget, the economy changes, no matter what you cut. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the government decided to suddenly eliminate taxes and also to end all government jobs, all government contracts, and all government transfer payments. The economy would collapse.
Now, from an environmental point of view, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If there is no money, there is no consumption. People forced to live within their means would be cutting back on everything, and maybe growing food in their backyards again (assuming they still had houses with backyards).
I tend to distrust the tax cutters because I believe once they got in control, they actually wouldn't cut taxes. They would just funnel money into the industries they wanted to support. And no one is willing to take the drastic cuts that would likely plunge the country into an economic crash. We already know that giving companies more money doesn't mean they increase capital investment or hire more people. They already have lots of money and aren't doing that. If there aren't customers, they sit on their cash. And if government spending ended, enough people would feel the effects that they wouldn't spend.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Nice Hatchet Job on Grover Norquist
Basically people are saying here is one way to simplify things. And yet we have companies and politicians trying to get in the way of that. It does strike people as yet another example of a big company using its money to protect its turf.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether: "Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan 'Imagination at Work' fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress."
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
Loopholes, for the most part, aren't good, because they reward some people and penalize others. People and companies end up making decisions based on tax loopholes. And people and companies with better accountants and better lawyers end up getting breaks that others don't get to take.
Tax loopholes reward some industries and penalize other industries, and that tends to reinforce the economic status quo.
On the post: YouTube Takes Down Music Video For 'Terms Of Service' Violation; Refuses To Explain Or Put Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Next >>