by Xerographica » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:06 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Ceannairceach » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:58 pm
by Esternial » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:13 pm
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:16 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:18 pm
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:26 pm
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:28 pm
by Scandinavian Nations » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:32 pm
Xerographica wrote:What is better, having some tax choice or having none?
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:37 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:How about "Pay 5% flat, or pay 10% and choose where it goes"? Something along those lines?
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:39 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:I choose to pay 10%... back into my own pocket.
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:41 pm
by Clan Skirata » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:42 pm
Esternial wrote:A lot of people are idiots and don't know shit about where their tax money goes to. If people got to choose where funding goes to it'd all go to things they can pronounce and/or even know the existence of, and I wouldn't entrust the funding of my country's infrastructure to a winy twat who want to choose where "his" money goes to.
It's not your money, anyway. Not anymore. They call it "paying" taxes for a reason.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:43 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:if they drag me away my argument in court will be...
''Well if Parliament INTENDED to limit the choice of where the 10% could go into, they would have and could have said so in the wording of the provision. Therefore, change the rule if you want, but I'm keeping my money. I have elected to pay 10% of my income back into my own bank. Take it as you will.''
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:44 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:44 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:if they drag me away my argument in court will be...
''Well if Parliament INTENDED to limit the choice of where the 10% could go into, they would have and could have said so in the wording of the provision. Therefore, change the rule if you want, but I'm keeping my money. I have elected to pay 10% of my income back into my own bank. Take it as you will.''
Good luck with that. More likely is that you'd end up paying well over 10% for tax evasion.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:45 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:sounds like oppression
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:46 pm
by Ceannairceach » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:47 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:49 pm
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:51 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:52 pm
by Ceannairceach » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:54 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Presumably then you don't use any government services. Otherwise that would be theft of goods and services allocated only under the assumption of social contract. Are you a thief?
I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).
Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:55 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).
Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.
Social contracts between states and their citizens do not work like the contracts made between people.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:55 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).
Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:56 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:then they are not real contracts and the word ''contract'' is just rhetoric to give legitimisation to the powerful.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, Haganham, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Infected Mushroom, Omphalos, Philjia, Sarolandia, Tungstan, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement