@faraday Please allow me to introduce you to the Greek taxation system.
When the financial crisis began the government came up with a brilliant, innovating way to tax people - based on 'expected future income'. So they'd tax you this year on what you made so far, and what they expect you to make next year... then the idea is they'll pay you for the difference. Of course calculating that difference takes a while - in some cases more than 365 days.
I also call that "taking people's stuff".
@arkandel Taxation is theft in general. The only thing that changes is how deeply into your pockets they'll make you go.
@dontpanda said in RL Anger:
@arkandel Taxation is theft in general. The only thing that changes is how deeply into your pockets they'll make you go.
If the theft in question is proportionate and everyone chips in according to their ability and even general impact on the economy then I'm in favor of it. Someone has to pay for road maintenance, policing and education after all.
But it just bugs me how much corporations get away with in general. For example consider Amazon's new headquarters soliciting a taxation race to the bottom for cities where a massive corporation is being granted mass favors in order to build their installation somewhere in particular.
Whichever city wins their favor (and all the other suitors for that matter) will still be among the major market segments the company's products will be sold in, its local infrastructure will bear the weight of all the extra traffic resulting from the logistical impact the mere existence of the headquarters will have, yet they will pay peanuts compared to other local companies who've been there all along. It will be overall better in the long run - but everyone else will be worse for it.
There's an inequality there that's only getting worse. Which of course is only compounded by studies showing the world's 1% earned 82% of the total wealth generated in 2017, which are really frustrating numbers to look at.
Whichever city wins their favor (and all the other suitors for that matter) will still be among the major market segments the company's products will be sold in, its local infrastructure will bear the weight of all the extra traffic resulting from the logistical impact the mere existence of the headquarters will have, yet they will pay peanuts compared to other local companies who've been there all along. It will be overall better in the long run - but everyone else will be worse for it.
I don't mean to start a political argument -- we can do that elsewhere -- but is there something inherently wrong with municipal corporations and/or townships or counties competing against one another to attract employers that will draw in much-needed commercial activity and income taxes?
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I don't mean to start a political argument -- we can do that elsewhere -- but is there something inherently wrong with municipal corporations and/or townships or counties competing against one another to attract employers that will draw in much-needed commercial activity and income taxes?
I don't think it's a political argument per se since what peeves me is hardly limited to any one party, so I think it still falls within the scope of 'RL anger'.
But yes, I think there is. It's the part where different cities are racing to the bottom against each other - as if that does anyone but let slightly less water into the boat from one side than the other.
Almost by definition the gains a township stands to make from their association with large corporations like this is as small as possible; after all, if they had bargained harder they'd have lost the bidding war, since another municipality would have been able to offer a better deal.
Yes, there are considerable benefits to having a corporation around - well paid, smart people get pulled there, spending their income on local businesses. The positive impact though is significant reduced due to the concessions they need to make so that the company will choose them in the first place. All that's done is trying to replace direct taxation on these companies themselves with income taxes from their employees' salaries.
In the mean time not only them but everyone is deprived of extra taxes that would cover part of the impact the business has, and over time as the corporation's profit margins wise, everyone else's shrink. The fabled trickle-down effect in the economy is lessened; financial markers might be going up, but personal wealth is reduced for the majority. The middle class taking hits is never a good thing in the long run.
That's what I find inherently wrong, and why it annoys me.
In the mean time not only them but everyone is deprived of extra taxes that would cover part of the impact the business has, and over time as the corporation's profit margins wise, everyone else's shrink. The fabled trickle-down effect in the economy is lessened; financial markers might be going up, but personal wealth is reduced for the majority. The middle class taking hits is never a good thing in the long run.
Just because the trickle-down effect is lessened doesn't make it any more real.
The unfortunate reality is that corporations can command those sorts of incentives -- and do. There's no prohibition to do so, and cities would be foolish to not entertain them.
There is a substantial economic impact when a business is lost, and when a business is gained. While it would be preferable that a city not slit its own throat to get a business, having Amazon set their new HQ in a place like Dayton (where I live) would be a major coup. And given how many businesses Dayton's lost (NCR, Mead, Reynolds & Reynolds, etc.), Amazon's decision would be a ridiculous shot in the arm.
I guess I simply find it luxuriant to pay lip service to how wrong the process is -- you're not incorrect -- when the grim reality is that the benefit is demonstrably worth what is described as a "cost."
It's like the progressives who poo-poo Schumer for the deal he struck, which was actually a victory.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede A lot of this comes from the 'all or nothing' approach that's becoming more common -- or at least one hell of a lot more visibly common.
Nuance is a thing. Compromise is a thing. Cooperation is a thing.
The 'all or nothing' approach is -- luxuriant is a good word, but I see it more as 'damagingly self-indulgent'. It's ultimately about ego, in the form of being able to claim a universally superior ideology.
This is not reality. Reality is a lot closer to this: "We have some good ideas, and we have some real stinkers." This is true no matter what the hell the ideology in question actually is.
It's not about practical real world results, which almost always require nuance, compromise, and cooperation...
...all of which require the ability to consider that (generic) you might be wrong, and (generic) they might be right about <specific thing>, even if (generic) you are right about <other specific thing> and (generic) they are pitching some eye-watering stinkers on that other subject.
Tribalism is making idiots of us all more often than not.
I guess I simply find it luxuriant to pay lip service to how wrong the process is -- you're not incorrect -- when the grim reality is that the benefit is demonstrably worth what is described as a "cost."
Oh I quite agree it's worth it to the city that 'wins' this. It does. If it didn't, after all, it wouldn't be as sought out as it is - these guys aren't stupid, they've crunched the numbers. Ultimately cities get more than they lose out on.
What I begrudge so heavily is the long term effect of corporations leveraging themselves into increasing their bottom of line by cutting into society's as a whole. They concede and contribute as little as possible through creative accounting and tax shelters while we all try to beat each other in what is becoming a zero-sum game; some cities win, some lose.
But also consider the hidden costs of all this. For example say that Amazon comes to your part of the woods! A big win, for sure. However how screwed would you be if you were running a local business and now had to compete on recruitment for the same people as they do? How about if you're not an employee but were hoping to rent (or, worse, own) a house there when the real estate market skyrockets?
I dunnot. I'll get off my high horse now though. Yee-haw!
But also consider the hidden costs of all this. For example say that Amazon comes to your part of the woods! A big win, for sure. However how screwed would you be if you were running a local business and now had to compete on recruitment for the same people as they do? How about if you're not an employee but were hoping to rent (or, worse, own) a house there when the real estate market skyrockets?
These aren't hidden costs. These should be expected costs. And there are expected benefits too: how about if you do own property near Amazon when it opens up? And what about the small business that can expect an increase in business due to Amazon's appearance, such as a restaurant owner?
I had a brief discussion with a friend about gentrification. Naturally, he was against it. I tried to point out the benefits and, more importantly, the inevitability of gentrification, but, as Surreality pointed out, he stood on the line of the tribe he chose to follow.
What grinds my gears is how tribalism has led to the calcification of the economy. Decisions should be decided by evidence and numbers, not outdated concepts or traditions. The United States is getting ground to a pulp economically in many sectors because it stubbornly refuses to innovate, and then, when it does, you get a GIANT FUCKING PUMPKIN that rears his stupid head and tries to plant anti-capitalist tariffs to destroy an innovative industry.
Stupidity will be the death of us all.
@dontpanda said in RL Anger:
@arkandel Taxation is theft in general. The only thing that changes is how deeply into your pockets they'll make you go.
But I like having roads and clean water and fire departments and public education...
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@cupcake ...but but but but but you can flop over into the puddle on the dirt road to put yourself out when you're on fire! See, there's your free education!
(If I hadn't seen plenty of actual political discussions/arguments precisely as dim as the joke response above, I would probably hate political discussions less than I do. 
)
Ugh, I just found out that the person I'm handing my work off to just overwrites everything with some shitty copy-paste bs.
Like, why are they asking for meticulous detail work when they just toss it all away in the next step? sigh.
@dontpanda said in RL Anger:
Taxation is theft in general.
I hear this a lot in Ohio.
I don't even know where to begin as to why this statement is factually, legally, and morally incorrect.
I don't think of taxation as taxation. I think of it as 'living in this country rent and fees'.
He/Him
I don't think of taxation as taxation. I think of it as 'living in this country rent and fees'.
How about paying proportionally higher rent and fees than your much richer neighbor?
I don't think of taxation as taxation. I think of it as 'living in this country rent and fees'.
How about paying proportionally higher rent and fees than your much richer neighbor?
That's just the inequality of our nation, which is no longer a Republic, but an Oligarchy. It's becoming more and more 'cyberpunk' every day, with a good deal of Idiocracy thrown in.
@arkandel I don't have rich neighbours. I was mostly responding to the whole 'taxation is theft' garbage with a more accurate but just as stupid phrasing.
Using roads, police, and firefighting services is theft. Only people who can afford private police, firefighting, and roads should be allowed to use them.
Peasants.
@dontpanda said in RL Anger:
@arkandel Taxation is theft in general. The only thing that changes is how deeply into your pockets they'll make you go.
But I like having roads and clean water and fire departments and public education...
