Overseas Companies and Taxation

[KnightersRevenge]

If you value your wellbeing then you shouldn’t value taxing anyone.

Gia, what do you think of society? Does it mean anything? Or in your model are we all individuals? One of the reasons for taxation is because we accept that we live in a co-operative group with some shared values and aspiratons and having everyone pitch in to help evens the playing field and provides generalised services. Is there room in your model for co-operatives?

 

[Giardiasis]

Gia, what do you think of society? Does it mean anything? Or in your model are we all individuals? One of the reasons for taxation is because we accept that we live in a co-operative group with some shared values and aspiratons and having everyone pitch in to help evens the playing field and provides generalised services. Is there room in your model for co-operatives?

"Is there room in your model for co-operatives?" Absolutely, everything I've been banging on about is based upon social cooperation. I think that we are all individuals, and that social cooperation is paramount to human development. Without social cooperation we wouldn't have language, knowledge; basically we wouldn't have the capacity to think. So social cooperation is the natural state of being human and in that sense I think society and humanity are reciprocal.

The problem we are trying to overcome here is the problem of scarcity, i.e. we have scarce resources to meet unlimited demand. In order to solve this problem the question we need to answer is, "What means should we employ for the ends sort?" My contention is that taxation and re-distribution by a centralised government are inferior means to achieve the ends sort (the ends being meeting human demands) than through private property and free markets.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

"Is there room in your model for co-operatives?" Absolutely, everything I've been banging on about is based upon social cooperation. I think that we are all individuals, and that social cooperation is paramount to human development. Without social cooperation we wouldn't have language, knowledge; basically we wouldn't have the capacity to think. So social cooperation is the natural state of being human and in that sense I think society and humanity are reciprocal.

The problem we are trying to overcome here is the problem of scarcity, i.e. we have scarce resources to meet unlimited demand. In order to solve this problem the question we need to answer is, "What means should we employ for the ends sort?" My contention is that taxation and re-distribution by a centralised government are inferior means to achieve the ends sort (the ends being meeting human demands) than through private property and free markets.

Why do you propose "meeting humans demands" as the ends? Humans are selfish. Why not propose the Sam Harris model of "the best possible good for everyone"?

 

[Giardiasis]

Why do you propose "meeting humans demands" as the ends? Humans are selfish. Why not propose the Sam Harris model of "the best possible good for everyone"?

And who is to determine the best possible good for everyone? Are not politicians and bureaucrats human and selfish? In any case the best possible good for everyone is best achieved through private property and free markets.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

And who is to determine the best possible good for everyone? Are not politicians and bureaucrats human and selfish? In any case the best possible good for everyone is best achieved through private property and free markets.

Says you. You propose only that your model is better but you cannot back it up. It is a bald assertion because it is based on an untested model. To use an analogy, again of Sam Harris, the number of birds currently in flight globally is a finite and real concept but the answer is unknowable (most likely) but that dosen't make the concept (the best possible good for everyone) moot. The best possible good for everyone is the goal and guiding principle, and a better one than just the materialistic meeting of human demands. Some of those demands are likely to be locally or even personally good but reduce the general well-being (coal versus renewable for example) or fresh water for those who can pay that poisons the water table for those who can't.

Free markets will be corrupted. It has been ever thus. What non-centralised control in your model corrects for monopolies?

 

[Giardiasis]

Says you. You propose only that your model is better but you cannot back it up. It is a bald assertion because it is based on an untested model. To use an analogy, again of Sam Harris, the number of birds currently in flight globally is a finite and real concept but the answer is unknowable (most likely) but that dosen't make the concept (the best possible good for everyone) moot. The best possible good for everyone is the goal and guiding principle, and a better one than just the materialistic meeting of human demands. Some of those demands are likely to be locally or even personally good but reduce the general well-being (coal versus renewable for example) or fresh water for those who can pay that poisons the water table for those who can't.

Free markets will be corrupted. It has been ever thus. What non-centralised control in your model corrects for monopolies?

Says science. Of course I can back it up; it has been clearly outlined by dozens of economists throughout history, and is today most accurately outlined by the Austrian School of Economics. Pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” to start with, but Ludwig von Mises’ classic “Human Action” provides the best defence of liberty and freedom (“History and Theory”, “Socialism” and “A Theory of Money and Credit” are also must reads). When you speak of models it shows that you don’t understand that economics is not an empirical science. Economic laws can only be discovered a priori, and any a posterior analysis is basically just a datum of history. Human action is not like the movement of the planets or the combustion of fuel, you cannot isolate all variables to accurately predict physical and chemical interactions. People all react differently to the same stimuli, even the same people will react differently to the same stimuli. Even so, history clearly demonstrates that those countries that have more liberty, capitalism and freedom of exchange are more prosperous and wealthy than those countries that do not have them.

You are incorrect if you think that “meeting human demands” and “the best possible good for everyone” are different ends. Both are basically the same core tenant of utilitarianism. Only individuals are in a position to determine what’s best for them (with the exception of mentally disabled persons and juveniles). Anything else is subject to the arbitrary whims of politicians and bureaucrats. You use environmental damage as an argument against liberty, when in every respect environmental damage is a private property issue. Everyone is the private property owner of their own body, and if two parties enter into an agreement that violates a third person’s private property, then this would be illegal. Your water poisoning example is clearly illegal and seems easy enough to deal with through the legal system. Your climate change example, well yes you might be disappointed that it is unlikely that someone could successfully prove that a coal fired power station is causing them environmental damage via climate change. But be under no illusions, your solution is for authoritarianism, you seek to impose your world view on others against their will.

Monopoly prices are only possible through government granted privileges; they are not possible in the long run under free markets.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Says science. Of course I can back it up; it has been clearly outlined by dozens of economists throughout history, and is today most accurately outlined by the Austrian School of Economics. Pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” to start with, but Ludwig von Mises’ classic “Human Action” provides the best defence of liberty and freedom (“History and Theory”, “Socialism” and “A Theory of Money and Credit” are also must reads). When you speak of models it shows that you don’t understand that economics is not an empirical science. Economic laws can only be discovered a priori, and any a posterior analysis is basically just a datum of history. Human action is not like the movement of the planets or the combustion of fuel, you cannot isolate all variables to accurately predict physical and chemical interactions. People all react differently to the same stimuli, even the same people will react differently to the same stimuli. Even so, history clearly demonstrates that those countries that have more liberty, capitalism and freedom of exchange are more prosperous and wealthy than those countries that do not have them.

You are incorrect if you think that “meeting human demands” and “the best possible good for everyone” are different ends. Both are basically the same core tenant of utilitarianism. Only individuals are in a position to determine what’s best for them (with the exception of mentally disabled persons and juveniles). Anything else is subject to the arbitrary whims of politicians and bureaucrats. You use environmental damage as an argument against liberty, when in every respect environmental damage is a private property issue. Everyone is the private property owner of their own body, and if two parties enter into an agreement that violates a third person’s private property, then this would be illegal. Your water poisoning example is clearly illegal and seems easy enough to deal with through the legal system. Your climate change example, well yes you might be disappointed that it is unlikely that someone could successfully prove that a coal fired power station is causing them environmental damage via climate change. But be under no illusions, your solution is for authoritarianism, you seek to impose your world view on others against their will.

Monopoly prices are only possible through government granted privileges; they are not possible in the long run under free markets.

How do you in one breath claim science verifies your account then admit that economics is not empirical science?

Yes, I understand that economics is not a classical science but that just means it is not reasonable to have your level confidence in the theory. It seems that your adherence to Austrian School type ideas causes you to make impossibly confident black/white statements like "monopoly prices are only possible through government granted privileges". In general I am distrustful of people who speak in absolutes, I find it is most commonly associated with ideology, but in all honesty reading the musings of libertarians is not my cup of tea. I know that means I will not be able to effectively argue against some of your assertions but so be it.

Yes your "meeting human demands" could be the same as my "best possible good for everyone". It is how we get there that we disagree on. I lack your confidence in free markets and I don't accept that it is centralised government and not simply greed that is the greater cause of inequality. I asked what, if not centralised government of some type, ensures fairness in your model and you answer with an of course it would be illegal. According to who? How is it decided what is illegal and who enforces it?

 

[Giardiasis]

How do you in one breath claim science verifies your account then admit that economics is not empirical science?

Yes, I understand that economics is not a classical science but that just means it is not reasonable to have your level confidence in the theory. It seems that your adherence to Austrian School type ideas causes you to make impossibly confident black/white statements like "monopoly prices are only possible through government granted privileges". In general I am distrustful of people who speak in absolutes, I find it is most commonly associated with ideology, but in all honesty reading the musings of libertarians is not my cup of tea. I know that means I will not be able to effectively argue against some of your assertions but so be it.

Yes your "meeting human demands" could be the same as my "best possible good for everyone". It is how we get there that we disagree on. I lack your confidence in free markets and I don't accept that it is centralised government and not simply greed that is the greater cause of inequality. I asked what, if not centralised government of some type, ensures fairness in your model and you answer with an of course it would be illegal. According to who? How is it decided what is illegal and who enforces it?

Easy, science is broader than simply empirical science.

You left out "in the long run" in my statement which means I didn't make an absolute statement of the impossibility of monopoly prices under free markets. Free markets deal with monopoly prices through entrepreneurship and competition, hence they don't last in the long run. There is no such corrective mechanism in government privileged monopolies, hence the problem of monopoly is primarily a problem of intervention. If you aren't prepared to understand economics, than perhaps you should refrain from forming opinions on it?

What is the alternative to government monopoly of the legal system? Why private courts of course! Unfortunately if you want to properly understand the arguments you are going to have to read the musings of libertarians....A good place to start is "The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law" by Randy Barnett, or alternatively this free review: https://mises.org/system/tdf/qjae2_4_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Easy, science is broader than simply empirical science.

You left out "in the long run" in my statement which means I didn't make an absolute statement of the impossibility of monopoly prices under free markets. Free markets deal with monopoly prices through entrepreneurship and competition, hence they don't last in the long run. There is no such corrective mechanism in government privileged monopolies, hence the problem of monopoly is primarily a problem of intervention. If you aren't prepared to understand economics, than perhaps you should refrain from forming opinions on it?

What is the alternative to government monopoly of the legal system? Why private courts of course! Unfortunately if you want to properly understand the arguments you are going to have to read the musings of libertarians....A good place to start is "The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law" by Randy Barnett, or alternatively this free review: https://mises.org/system/tdf/qjae2_4_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

I will give it a shot when I get the chance. My not being deeply conversant with economic theory does not mean I can't contribute to a discussion using my intuition just that you are free to assign low value to my contributions, or stop answering me I suppose.

I left out the end of the quote because it wasn't relevant. Your use of "only" makes the statement absolute, the qualifier at the end does not change that to my reading of it.

Private courts? Like private fire brigades, or private ambulances?

 

[Giardiasis]

I left out the end of the quote because it wasn't relevant. Your use of "only" makes the statement absolute, the qualifier at the end does not change that to my reading of it.

Private courts? Like private fire brigades, or private ambulances?

Fair enough, but I would have thought my supplementary explanation provided sufficient qualification of my statement. Under the market system there are only relative monopolies that are subject to competition from new entrants hence monopoly prices can only exist in the short term. Under the socialist/interventionist system there are absolute monopolies that do not face competition from new entrants, hence monopoly prices can be sustained in the long run (under communism there are no prices!). You might consider economic law as absolute, but that is why is it considered economic law. What matters is whether it is correct or not.

Yes privatitisation of all government services. Fire Brigades and ambulances don't appear as controversial to me as private courts, defence, and police.

 

[Sintiger]

A long time ago this thread used to be about what could actually happen to increase the amount of tax paid by overseas companies in Australia.

 

[tigersnake]

Your climate change example, well yes you might be disappointed that it is unlikely that someone could successfully prove that a coal fired power station is causing them environmental damage via climate change.

Nah its likely, been done actually.

Back to the thread title, if they drop the company tax rate at least that means big companies will be dodging less tax.

 

[Giardiasis]

Nah its likely, been done actually.

Link?

 

[tigersnake]

Link?

The internet? Its called longitudinal data, scientific literature, specifically the climate change literature, ignore anything not peer reviewed or published by no-name organisations, maybe google 'climate change', or 'coal and climate change'? Good starting point anyway.


edit: OK, re read your claim. Sorry, I thought you meant 'unlikely that someone could prove a coal fired power station is causing environmental damage via climate change', that's been proven obviously, I didn't register the 'them', ie legally proving specific damage to an individual from a specific coal plant. Pondering that specific point, my gut feel was 'probably not, but won't be far away'.

Anyhow I googled 'lawsuits against coal fired power stations', this came up.

http://www.cambridge.org/au/academic/subjects/law/environmental-law/climate-change-litigation-regulatory-pathways-cleaner-energy

skimmed the e-book. Looks very interesting. Successful lawsuits against coal companies are becoming more common, routine even. But more on other toxic aspects of mostly older plants, coal dust, heavy metals, leaking sludge from settling ponds of scrubber-waste, that kind of thing. But the contribution of GH gases by an individual plant is now being routinely considered by courts and many top legal minds believe its just a matter of time before its used to shut down a plant or stop one being built.

So the book says, 'won't be far away'. Check it out, nice cover, hot off the presses 2015. its looks a good read, Cambridge Uni Press, blue ribbon mob, and the lawyer authors seem to know their stuff.

 

[Giardiasis]

:hihi

Thanks for re-reading my statement. I still think it unlikely.